HD 


UC-NRLF 


U7U8 


17  a 


DOCUMENTS 


Dl 


PT, 


STATE  OF  UTAH 


REPORT  OF  THE 


Employer's  Liability  and  Workmen's 
Compensation  Commission 


TO  THE 


ELEVENTH  SESSION  OF  THE 
LEGISLATURE  OF  UTAH 


TOGETHER    WITH   DRAFT   OF 


T11K  BILL  SUBMITTED 


GIFT   OF 


DOCUMENTS 

DFPT. 


EMPLOYER'S  LIABILITY  AND 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION 

COMMISSION 

Appointed  by 

GOVERNOR  WILLIAM  SPRY 
Under  and  By  Virtue  of  the  Authorization  of 

SENATE  BILL  No.  245 

Introduced  By 

SENATOR  D.  O.  HIDEOUT 

In  the  Eleventh  Session  of  the  'Legislature  of  the 

STATE  OF  UTAH 

For  Presentation  to  the  Legislature  of  1917    •, 


DON  B.  COLTON,  Chairman,  H.  B.  WINDSOR,  Secretary, 

Vernal,  Utah.  Salt  ^^  City>  utan 

LE  GRAND  YOUNG,    Vice  Ohm., 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah.  H   K   RTJSSELL,  Asst.  Secty., 

IRA  R.  BROWNING,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

Castle  Dale,  Utah. 

R.  C.  GEMMELL,  CHAS.  H.  PEARSON, 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah.  Ogden,  Utah. 


' 


To  the  Honorable,  the  Governor,  and  the  Members  and 
the  Members-elect  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Utah,  the  Year  1917. 

Gentlemen : 

The  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Utah,  with  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Honorable  Governor  William  Spry,  in  its 
last  session  of  1915,  passed  an  act  entitled  "An  Act  to 
Provide  for  the  Appointment  of  a  Commission  to  Inquire 
into  the  Question  of  Employers '  Liability  and  Other  Mat- 
ters, and  provide  an  appropriation  therefor,"  which  law 
reads  as  follows,  to- wit: 

Section  1.  That  the  Governor  of  this  State  is  hereby 
authorized  and  directed  to  appoint  a  commission  to  con- 
sist of  seven  members,  as  follows :  One  State  Senator, 
one  State  Representative,  two  employers  of  labor,  two 
representatives  of  labor  and  one  attorney-at-law.  The 
duties  of  the  Commission  so  appointed  shall  be  to  make  an 
inquiry,  examination  and  investigation  into  the  subject  of 
a  direct  compensation  law  or  a  law  affecting  the  liability 
of  employers  to  employes  for  industrial  accidents. 

Section  2.  That  the  members  of  such  Commission 
shall  serve  without  compensation,  except  that  each  shall 
be  entitled  to  his  actual  and  necessary  expenses  incurred 
in  the  performance  of  his  duties  under  the  provisions  of 
this  Act. 

Section  3.  That  for  the  purpose  of  its  investigations 
the  Commission  or  any  member  or  sub-committee  thereof, 
is  hereby  authorized  to  visit  different  localities  in  the 
State,  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  to  investigate  the 
laws  of  other  States  and  countries,  to  administer  oaths 
and  to  examine  witnesses  and  papers  respecting  all  mat- 
ters pertaining  to  the  subjects  referred  to  in  ths  Act,  to 
purchase  books  and  supplies  and  to  employ  and  pay  all 
necessary  assistants. 

3 

3666 


Section  4.  That  the  expenses  incurred  by  the  Com- 
mission, and  its  employes  shall  be  paid  upon  the  presen- 
tation of  proper  itemized  vouchers  signed  by  the  chair- 
man of  the  Commission  and  approved  by  the  Governor, 
provided  such  expenses  shall  not  exceed  five  hundred 
dollars. 

Section  5.  That  the  Commissioner  of  Immigration, 
Labor  and  Statistics  is  hereby  directed  to  co-operate  with 
the  Commission  and  to  render  it  any  proper  aid  and  as- 
sistance by  the  Bureau  of  Immigration,  Labor  and  Sta- 
tistics, as,  in  his  judgment,  will  not  interfere  with  proper 
conduct  of  his  department. 

Section  6.  The  Commission  herein  authorized  to  be 
appointed  shall  organize  by  the  election  of  a  chairman 
and  secretary  and  shall  submit  a  full  report  of  its  work 
and  findings  to  the  members  and  members-elect  of  the 
next  Legislature  at  least  sxty  days  before  its  next  regular 
session,  and  shall  include  therein  its  recommendations  for 
legislation,  together  with  such  bill  or  bills  providing  for 
a  speedy  remedy  for  employes  for  injuries  received. 

Pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  Section  1  of  the  law 
above  quoted,  the  Governor,  Honorable  William  Spry,  on 
the  1st  day  of  March,  1916,  appointed  the  Commission, 
provided  for  under  said  Act,  consisting  of  the  Senator, 
Don  B.  Colton;  Eepresentative,  Ira  E.  Browning;  Mr.  E. 
C.  Gemmel,  Mr.  H.  B.  Windsor,  Mr.  H.  K.  Russell,  Mr. 
Charles  H.  Pearson  and  Mr.  LeGrand  Young.  The  Com- 
mission met  immediately  and  selected  the  following  of- 
ficers: The  Honorable  Don  B.  Colton,  Chairman;  Mr. 
LeGrand  Young,  Vice-Chairman,  and  Mr.  H.  B.  Windsor, 
Secretary,  and  Mr.  H.  K.  Russell,  Assistant  Secretary, 
who  at  once  entered  upon  the  work  for  which  they  were 
appointed. 

In  the  judgment  of  your  committee,  among  the  first 
of  their  duties  was  to  investigate  the  laws  of  the  several 
States  and  to  ascertain  the  nature  of  their  working,  as 
well  as  the  Commission  could  do  in  the  time  they  had  and 
with  practically  no  means  at  their  command,  to  make  their 
findings  and  report  them.  The  Secretary  of  the 


Commission,  under  its  instructions,  communicated 
with  a  number  of  the  various  commissions  and  officers 
of  the  several  States,  in  relation  to  the  matter  in  hand, 
asking  for  their  latest  laws  and  proposed  bills,  and  in- 
quiring into  the  workings  thereof.  Prompt  answers  came 
to  the  letters  so  written,  with  the  views  of  several  men 
who  had  given  the  subject  years  of  study.  One  or  two  of 
our  members,  also,  at  their  own  expense  and  while  on 
eastern  trips,  visited  various  states  and  brought  back 
word  of  their  experience.  The  Commission  also  had 
some  most  valuable  interviews  with  Chairman  Mullin 
of  the  Nevada  State  Commission  when  he  was  stopping 
over  in  Salt  Lake  and  adopted  valuable  suggestions  from 
him. 

It  is  to  be  regretted,  however,  that  the  Commission 
could  not  have  visited  other  states  as  a  body,  to  observe, 
at  first  hand,  the  operations  of  the  various  laws. 

Other  States  gave  their  Commissions  as  many  thou- 
sands as  we  had  hundreds,  which  enabled  them  to  employ 
a  paid  Secretary  and  to  have  the  needed  clerical  help,  as 
well  as  to  do  a  reasonable  amount  of  traveling. 

After  a  very  thorough  investigation  of  the  several 
laws  now  in  force,  your  Commission  formulated  the  bill 
which  is  herewith  returned  to  your  Honorable  Body, 
and  it  is  made  a  part  of  this  report. 

It  is  too  early  yet  to  finally  pass  upon  the  merits  of 
the  system.  The  legislation  on  the  subject  in  America  is 
but  a  few  years  old,  and  the  experience  under  the  earlier 
laws  was  not  such  as  to  give  much  important  information 
or  data.  This  statement,  however,  does  not  apply  to  the 
experience  of  the  different  governments  of  Europe.  It 
is  now  some  thirty  years  or  more  since  the  German  gov- 
ernment passed  laws  in  regard  to  workingmen's  compen- 
sation, doing  away  with  the  liability  law.  It  was  some 
time  later  that  the  Austrian-Hungarian  parliament  and 
the  English  parliament  undertook  to  deal  with  this  im- 
portant question. 


The  experience  of  these  several  governments,  viewed 
through  the  workings  of  the  boards  and  commissions,  un- 
der these  laws  have  been  examined  by  delegations  from 
this  country  and  men  appointed  by  Congress  and  also 
from  some  of  the  States  of  the  Union.  After  the  most 
thorough  and  searching  investigation  by  the  commissions 
so  appointed,  as  well  as  by  other  parties  who  have  inter- 
ested themselves  in  this  question,  it  seems  to  be  the  uni- 
versal verdict,  so  far  as  the  principle  is  concerned,  that 
the  workingmen's  compensation  law  is  far  ahead  of  the 
employers'  liability  law,  both  in  favor  of  the  working- 
man  and  the  employer. 

In  our  endeavors  to  find  the  best  precedents  we  could 
obtain,  we  have  studied,  in  a  tentative  way,  all  the  laws, 
and  quite  thoroughly  some  of  the  laws,  of  the  different 
States,  and  after  a  pretty  thorough  investigation,  the 
commission  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  statute  of 
Indiana,  approved  by  the  session  of  its  Legislature  of 
1915,  was  about  the  most  up-to-date  piece  of  legislation 
found  on  this  subject.  So  we  have  practically  adopted 
the  Statute  of  Indiana.  Of  course,  your  Commission  has 
had  to  make  some  additions  and  amendments,  but  as  a 
whole,  it  has  used  that  Statute  as  a  basis  for  its  bill,  with 
the  addition  of  desirable  features  from  the  Compensation 
Laws  of  Colorado,  Nevada,  Montana,  and  from  the  very 
latest  of  all,  that  of  Kentucky. 

The  bill  we  present  to  your  Honorable  Body  makes 
the  title  of  the  proposed  law  "The  Utah  Workmen's 
Compensation  Act/' 

The  bill  is  divided  into  five  parts.  Part  one  deals 
with  the  rights  and  remedies;  part  two  the  compensa- 
tion schedule ;  part  three  has  to  do  with  the  administra- 
tion of  the  proposed  law;  part  four  deals  with  the  ques- 
tion of  insurance,  and  provides  the  manner  in  which  the 
compensation  of  workingmen  shall  be  secured,  and  part 
five  has  reference  to  definitions  and  miscellaneous  pro- 
visions. 


The  Commission  in  this  report  does  not  attempt  a 
thorough  analysis  of  this  bill,  as  the  bill  itself  is  a  part  of 
your  Commission's  report  and  it  will  speak  for  itself. 
Besides  this,  there  is  added  to  the  bill  a  general  digest 
which,  to  some  extent,  does  away  with  the  necessity  of 
analysis  of  different  parts  of  it.  Your  Commission  will, 
however,  make  a  brief  reference  to  a  few  prominent  pro- 
visions of  the  bill. 

First.  The  bill  provides  that  it  shall  be  presumed 
that  all  employers  and  all  employes  and  the  legal  repre- 
sentatives of  any  and  all  deceased  employes  shall  accept 
the  terms  of  the  Act,  and  that  if  they  decline  to  accept  the 
terms  of  the  proposed  law  they  will  have  to  give  notice, 
as  provided  in  the  law  itself.  By  this  provision  it  will 
be  seen  that  the  law  isj^lectiye.  This  question  of  making 
the  Act  elective  or  mandatory  is  one  that  engaged  the  at- 
tention of  your  Commission  for  some  time,  and  after  a 
thorough  discussion  they  concluded  to  adopt  the  elective 
form  in  preference  to  the  compulsory. 

Among  the  reasons  for  this  view  are  that  most  of  the 
States  have  adopted  a  form  of  bill, of  this  style,  and  be- 
sides that,  the  Commission  believed  it  to  be  more  in  har- 
mony with  the  genius  of  our  institutions,  and  that  it  would 
also  be  better  received  by  the  employer  and  the  employe 
in  this  form.  At  an  early  period  in  our  investigations 
and  discussions  we  met  with  the  important  pro- 
vision of  our  Constitution  in  regard  to  the  rights 
of  representatives  of  deceased  persons.  The  provision 
we  have  reference  to  is  Section  5,  Article  16  of  the  Utah 
Constitution,  which  reads :  The  right  of  action  to  recover 
damages  for  injuries  resulting  in  death  shall  never  be  ab- 
rogated, and  the  amount  recoverable  shall  not  be  limited 
by  any  statutory  regulation." 

Our  view  of  this  section  of  the  Constitution  is  that 
we  could  not,  in  any  way,  limit  the  right  of  the  heirs  or 
next  of  kin  of  a  deceased  person,  who  had  met  his  death 
through  the  negligence  of  some  other  party,  from  claiming 

7 


the  right  to  sue  for  damages  in  any  amount  that  such 
heirs  or  next  of  kin  might  elect  to  name. 

After  a  thorough  discussion  of  this  question  the 
Commission  believes  they  have  met  this  inhibition  of  the 
Constitution  in  a  manner  that  will  be  in  harmony  with 
the  provision  above  quoted.  In  this  law  the  Commis- 
sion has  not  tried  to  take  away  the  right  of  the  next  of 
kin  or  the  heirs  of  deceased  persons  to  bring  an  action 
against  an  employer  to  recover  any  amount  they  desire. 
The  proposed  act  gives  the  representative  of  a  deceased 
person  a  new  right  which  they  can  accept  if  they  so  elect. 
If  the  representatives  of  a  deceased  person  decline  to  ac- 
cept the  provisions  of  this  bill,  or  indeed,  if  any  injured 
person  refuses  to  accept  the  provisions  of  the  law,  having 
exempted  himself,  by  proper  notice,  the  bill  has 
restored  to  the  employer  who  has  accepted  the  provisions 
therof  the  right  to  defend  himself  against  the  claims  of 
such  parties  the  unrestricted  right  of  all  common  law  de- 
fenses, such  as  the  negligence  of  a  fellow  servant,  con- 
tributory negligence  and  the  assumption  of  risk  by  the 
injured  party  as  such  defenses  existed  before  any  amend- 
ments to  them  by  the  Statutory  law. 

Your  Commission  are  well  aware  there  will  be  some 
criticism  on  this  particular  point ;  they  presume  it  will  be 
said  that  while  the  law  pretends  to  preserve  the  right  of 
the  legal  representatives  and  next  of  kin  of  a  deceased  em- 
ploye to  sue  for  any  sum,  it  coerces  such  party  and  forces 
him  to  accept  the  law  by  giving  to  the  employer  the  de- 
fenses that  will  defeat  the  recalcitrant  heir.  Possibly 
this  may -be  the  effect  of  it,  but  your  Commission  fully 
believes  that  the  Legislature  is  justified  in  this  class  of 
legislation,  in  placing  all  employes  on  the  same  footing  as 
near  as  it  can,  and  if  any,  who  happen  to  be  exceptionally 
favored,  and  on  that  account  or  for  cny  reason,  decline 
to  be  governed  by  the  provisions  of  this  statute,  your 
Commission  is  inclined  to  believe  that  the  employers  who 
do  accept  the  law  should  receive  all  the  protection  it  is 
possible  to  give  them. 


The  Act  or  proposed  Act  provides  that  it  shall  not 
apply  to  casual  laborers  or  to  employers  who  employ  less 
than  four  in  the  same  industrial  employment,  nor  to  pri- 
vate householders,  nor  to  domestic  servants. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Section  9  does  not  except 
agriculture. 

This  is  a  most  interesting  question. 

When  the  compensation  question  was  before  the  last 
legislature  it  was  brought  out  most  clearly  that  the  min- 
ing employers  looked  with  suspicion  upon  the  putting  of 
the  agricultural  industry  into  the  class  which  was  ex- 
empted, but  which  could  elect  to  accept  the  provisions  of 
the  compensation  law.  Eepresentatives  of  the  miners 
asked  many  pointed  questions  at  public  meetings  and  else- 
where, and  they  took  the  very  reasonable  ground  that  they 
particularly  desired  the  farmers  to  be  included,  especially 
as  they  were  so  powerful  in  the  Legislature. 

The  mining  fraternity  ridiculed  the  idea  that  agri- 
culture is  so  devoid  of  hazard  as  not  to  be  considered  in 
connection  with  legislation  of  this  sort.  They  point  out 
that  the  days  of  treading  out  the  wheat  with  the  ox  or  of 
threshing  with  a  hand  flail,  when  slow  and  comparatively 
safe  agencies  of  animals  and  water  supplied  the  power  for 
agricultural  pursuits,  were  past ;  that  now  the  farmer  digs 
post  holes  and  plants  trees  with  dynamite,  plows  with 
tractors  and  reaps  with  harvesters  driven  with  gasoline 
or  steam. 

They  point  to  the  fact  that  the  accident  insurance 
companies  which  have  the  data  and  statistics  of  long  ex- 
perience, rate  farming,  with  the  raising  and  marketing  of 
cattle,  horses  and  sheep,  as  being  almost  on  a  par  with 
mining  for  a  high  accident  experience. 

The  Commission  confesses  that  they  can  find  no  good 
reason  for  exempting  agricultural  pursuits  and  it  there- 
fore had  included  them  in  those  to  be  covered. 

They  do,  however,  believe  that  the  small  farmer  who 
operates  with  the  help  of  his  family  and  a  very  limited 

9 


amount  of  extra  help  at  the  harvest  season  should  be 
permitted  to  choose  his  own  method. 

The  Commission  feels  that  few  understand  the  lia- 
bility they  are  now  under  and  that  in  a  short  time  all  will 
be  glad  to  take  the  protection  of  the  compensation  law 
which  does  not  create  a  new  liability,  but  merely  regu- 
lates one  that  now  exists. 

They  feel  that  the  small  and  struggling  farmer  should 
have  the  option  of  deciding  this  question  for  himself,  but 
they  feel  that  the  same  privilege  should  be  extended  to 
the  small  miner,  printer  or  lodging  house  keeper.  There- 
fore, Section  9  exempts  those  employing  less  than  four, 
thereby  following  the  example  of  other  States  and  ex- 
tending the  option  to  those  who  will  most  probably  exag- 
gerate the  consequences  to  themselves  from  a  pessimistic 
standpoint. 

The  bill  also  provides  that  if  the  employer  elects  not 
to  operate  under  this  Act,  he  shall  not  be  allowed  to  de- 
fend himself  on  any  one  of  the  three  grounds,  first :  That 
the  employe  was  negligent ;  second :  Assumption  of  risk 
by  the  injured  party;  third:  Contributory  negligence. 

The  Act  is  drawn  so  as  to  protect  the  employe  by 
giving  the  employe  the  same  preference  against  the  as- 
sets of  the  employer  as  is  allowed  for  in  unpaid  wages  for 
labor,  and  no  claim  for  compensation  under  the  proposed 
Act  is  assignable,  and  such  claim  is  exempt  from  the 
claims  of  creditors. 

The  provision  of  the  Act  covers  all  the  employes  of 
municipal  corporations. 

In  Section  25  the  Commission  has  borrowed  from  the 
Montana  law  with  regard  to  retaining  the  well-established 
"hospital"  or  medical  arrangement  that  now  exists,  par- 
ticularly in  the  mining  camps. 

As  the  custom  and  arrangement  seemed  mutually  sat- 
isfactory and  to  be  without  abuse,  the  Commission  pro- 
vided for  the  continuation  of  the  present  method,  but. 
with  certain  restrictions  and  a  prohibition  of  any  profit 

whatever  to  the  employer  over  and  above  actual  cost. 

10 


In  Section  28  we  find  the  waiting  period  which  we 
recommended  to  be  the  usual  fourteen  days  that  the  ma- 
jority of  the  states  have  adopted. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  that  Colo- 
rado, our  nearest  neighbor  on  the  east,  has  a  waiting  pe- 
riod of  three  weeks,  which  is  about  the  longest  of  any, 
while  Nevada  'on  our  west  side  has  only  one  week,  which 
is  almost  the  shortest  of  any. 

Arizona,  California  and  Montana  have  the  period  of 
two  weeks,  which  is  considered  as  being  sufficient  to  dis- 
courage malingering  and  obviate  the  flood  of  small  claims 
that  would  be  inevitable  from  the  smaller  accidents. 

Certainly  it  would  be  a  thriftless  provider  who  could 
not  bridge  over  this  short  period  and  by  omitting  the 
trivial  accidents  a  better  provision  can  be  made  for  those 
of  more  consequence. 

Part  Second  pertains  to : 

Compensation  Schedule. 

Your  Commission  will  not  attempt  to  analyze  this 
schedule.  It,  like  the  rest  of  the  bill,  and  more  particu- 
larly than  any  other  part  of  the  bill,  will  have  to  be  read 
and  studied.  As  above  stated,  the  Commission  has  taken 
the  provisions  of  this  schedule  from  the  laws  of  the  ma- 
jority of  the  other  States. 

There  is  one  thing  in  this  schedule  that  has  occurred 
to  a  portion  of  your  Commission  since  they  prepared  the 
bill,  that  it  might  be  deemed  unfair  in  relation  to  the  com- 
pensation for  total  disability.  They  very  much  doubt  that 
the  provision,  as  they  have  it,  which  is,  however,  practi- 
cally a  copy  of  other  laws,  will  prove  satisfactory.  It 
seems  to  your  Commission  that  the  amount  to  be  paid  in 
cases  of  total  disability  should  be  extended  over  a  much 
greater  period.  Indeed,  in  justice  to  the  employe,  it 
should  be  for  his  whole  life,  but  your  Commission  do  not 
mean  by  this  remark  that  the  amount  to  be  paid  should  be 
increased  beyond  a  reasonable  amount,  but  the  amounts 
should  be  paid  in  smaller  sums,  after  a  time,  each 

11 


week  or  each  month  and  made  to  cov%r  a  greater  length 
of  time,  and  possibly  this  part  of  the  schedule  in  extreme 
cases  should  be  moderately  increased. 

We  will  close  this  section  of  our  report  by  stating 
and  showing  that  various  communications  have  been  re- 
ceived from  employers,  particularly  those  engaged  in 
coal  mining,  calling  attention  to  the  disadvantage  in  a 
commercial  way  that  will  be  put  upon  the  Utah  producers 
if  the  schedule  is  made  larger  than  that  of  the  adjoining 
states.  The  following  is  a  brief  statement  of  the  sched- 
ules of  Arizona,  Colorado,  Montana,  Nevada,  Wyoming, 
and  Utah : 


TOTAL 
DISABILITY 

PARTIAL 
DISABILITY 

DEATH 

Arizona  
Colorado  
Montana  .  - 

50%    of    average 
wages;    maximum, 
$4,000. 

50%    of   average 
weekly      wages  ; 
maximum,     $8,     to 
continue     as     long 
as  disability  is  to- 
tal. 

50%     of     weekly 

50%  of  average  loss 
of  earning  power; 
maximum  $4,000. 

50%  of  impairment 
of  earning  capac- 
ity; max.  weekly 
$8;  max.  amount 
$2,080.  Special 
schedule  for  loss 
certain  members. 

50%   of  impairment 

Sum   equal  to   2,400 
times  &  daily  wages; 
max.    $4,000.    If   no 
dependants,      rea- 
sonable     expenses 
of    medical    atten- 
tion and  burial. 

Maximum   $2,500.   If 
no    depend  ants, 
burial  expenses; 
max.  $100. 

From    30%:    to    50%, 

Nevada 

wages  ;     maximum 
weekly  $10  for  400 
weeks      or      $4,000, 
thereafter     at     $5 
weekly  while  per- 
manent    disability 
lasts. 

50%    of    average 

of  earning  capac- 
ity for  150  weeks, 
if  permanent;  50 
weeks  if  tempor- 
ary. Special  sched- 
ule for  loss  of 
members. 

50%     wage    loss 

according    to    kin- 
ship of  dependants; 
max.     weekly    $10; 
max.      period      400 
wks.   or   $4,000.     If 
no    dependa  nts 
burial  expenses, 
max.  $75. 

In   all   cases    burial 

Wyoming  
Idaho  

monthly    wages; 
max.  $60;  max.  pe- 
riod    100     months; 
max.  amt.  $5,000. 

Lump  sum  of  $1000 
if    unmarried.      If 
dependants      limit 
of  $3,000. 

Compensation      law 

monthly;  max.  $40; 
max.  period  60 
months;  special 
schedule  for  loss  of 
members. 

Special  schedule  for 
loss  of  members. 

expenses;  max. 
$125;    40%    to    60%, 
max.    amts.    $4,000 
and    $5,000,    and 
$6,000,  according  to 
number  of   depen- 
dants. 

In    all    cases   burial 
expenses;  max. 
$50.  If  dependants, 
amount  $2000. 

Utah 

passed  last  Legis- 
lature,  but  vetoed 
on    account    of    a 
TOO     large     appro- 
priation. 

50%    of    average 

50%    of  impairment 

Max    limi^  $3.00d.  If 

wages;  max.  week- 
ly  $12;   max.    amt. 
$4,000. 

of  earning  capac- 
ity; max.  weekly 
$12:  max.  amount 
$3,000. 

no    depend  ants. 
burial  expenses: 
max.  $100. 

12 


Prom  the  above  digest  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Com- 
mission recommends  a  schedule  that  is  between  that  of 
Colorado  and  Wyoming,  and  that  of  Nevada. 

It  was  finally  decided  to  leave  the  schedule  as  it  is, 
realizing  that  it  was  impossible  to  attain^  more  than  gen- 
eral and  approximate  results  for  the  initial  law,  and  the 
Commission  suggests  that  this  and  other  apparently  de- 
sirable phases  be  left  to  be  adjusted  by  the  Industrial 
Board,  and  for  possible  future  amendment.  In  Section  77 
the  much  discussed  Alien  question  is  dealt  with  by  the 
recommendation  of  half  benefits  and  other  restrictions 
for  which  there  are  good  reasons  and  examples  among 
other  States,  such  as  Colorado,  Montana  and  Kentucky. 

Safety  lies  in  the  middle  way  and  in  beaten  paths, 
and  the  Commission  has  been  reluctant  to  recommend 
that  Utah,  in  the  beginning,  should  adopt  features  not 
generally  in  vogue. 

The  next  or  third  part  of  the  bill  is  entitled 

Administration. 

By  it  a  Board  of  three  persons  is  created  to  adminis- 
ter this  statute,  all  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor,  with 
quasi  judicial  powers.  Their  salaries  and  expenses  are 
to  be  paid  by  the  State  as  other  state  officers. 

One  of  the  first  objections  to  this  law  will  be  that  it 
increases  the  state  expenses  and  adds  a  new  burden  to 
the  people.  Your  Commission  are  inclined  to  believe  that 
this  is  to  a  great  extent  a  misconception.  While  it  is 
conceded  that  the  administration  of  this  law  is  going  to 
cost  the  State  some  money,  it  will  not  be  as  expensive  on 
the  people  generally  as  one  would  at  first  think  it  would 
be.  As  it  is  today,  and  has  been  always,  the  injured  un- 
fortunates who  cannot  support  themselves  have  been  a 
burden  on  the  public,  or  worse  still,  have  been  a  burden 
on  some  particular  part  of  the  public,  and  most  often  on 
that  particular  part  that  is  least  able  to  bear  it.  By  this 
statute  or  proposed  law,  this  burden  is  simply  shifted 
from  a  few  to  all.  Society  in  the  aggregate  pays  no  more 

13 


money  in  the  long  run — it  simply  pays  it  as  a  whole  in 
place  of  a  part  of  it.  Besides,  this  law  will  relieve 
the  Courts  of  about  one-fifth  of  their  business,  which  will 
be  a  big  reduction  in  the  costs  to  the  State.  But  what- 
ever may  be  the  cost  to  the  State,  this  bill  belongs  to  the 
class  of  legislation  that  the  State  will  sooner  or  later  have 
to  enact  if  it  attempts  to  keep  pace  with  the  demands  of 
the  public  and  with  the  advancement  of  its  sister  com- 
monwealths. 

Many  plans  have  been  discussed  for  the  administra- 
tion of  the  law  by  less  than  an  industrial  board  of  three, 
but  your  Commission  are  fully  convinced  that  a  less  num- 
ber would  be  ineffectual  when  the  extent  of  territory  to  be 
covered  and  the  scope  of  duties  are  considered.  In  fact, 
where  any  state  has  unduly  limited  the  number  of  the 
commission,  it  has  made  up  the  cost  in  the  number  of  sec- 
retaries, aides  and  assistants  in  different  parts  of  the 
State,  so  there  has  been  nothing  gained  in  the  point  of 
economy  to  reduce  the  Commission  below  the  number  we 
have  named.  The  Connecticut  statute  provides  for  four 
Commissioners,  and  as  stated  in  Section  27  of  its  law: 

"Each  of  said  Commissioners  shall  receive  a  salary 
of  $5,000  per  annum,  payable  in  equal  monthly  install- 
ments in  like  manner  as  the  salary  of  a  Judge  of  the  Su- 
perior Court,  and  an  allowance  for  reasonable  and  neces- 
sary expenses  incurred  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  in- 
cluding the  services  of  a  stenographer  where  necessary, 
not  exceeding  in  all  $600,  to  be  taxed  and  allowed  by  a 
Judge  of  the  Superior  Court. ' ' 

You  will  notice  by  this  that  they  have  fixed  the  salary 
the  same  as  that  given  to  the  Judges  of  the  Superior 
Court,  and  this  is  the  general  trend  of  all  the  legislation 
upon  this  subject.  But  bear  in  mind  that  most  of  the 
Judges  of  the  Superior  Court  are  Judges  of  general  juris- 
diction and  not  what  is  deemed  appellate  court. 

In  the  report  accompanying  the  Connecticut  compen- 
sation law,  the  Commission  say : 

"In  regard  to  the  administrative  parts  of  the  bill,  as 
the  abolition  of  litigation,  with  its  numerous  disadvan- 

14 


tages,  has  been  one  of  the  main  objects  of  the  workmen's 
compensation  movement,  a  bill  which  would  not  meet  this 
necessity  would  probably  not  be  satisfactory  either  to  the 
employer  or  the  employe. " 

We  also  call  your  attention  to  the  report  of  the  Ten- 
nessee Commission: 

We  will  conclude  this  part  of  our  report  by  stating 
that  after  carefully  analyzing  each  bill  that  has  come  be- 
fore your  Commission,  they  have  formulated  the  pro- 
visions of  part  three,  mostly  taken  from  the  Indiana  law, 
.that  we  believe  will  be  found  sufficient  to  justly  administer 
the  provisions  of  the  proposed  act. 

The  next  subject  for  consideration  is  the  fourth  pro- 
vision of  the  bill.  This  is  entitled 

Insurance. 

The  main  thing  to  be  sought  in  this  part  of  the  bill 
is  the  absolute  certainty  that  the  injured  party  will  re- 
ceive the  money  that  is  promised  him.  We  will  say  here, 
we  believe  that  by  observing  the  rules  made  by  the  bill  we 
propose,  no  injured  employe  will  lose  the  compensation 
guaranteed  him  under  this  proposed  law.  It  will  be  ob- 
served we  have  not  provided  for  any  public  insurance  au- 
thorized and  governed  by  the  State.  Your  Commission  are 
not  inclined  to  recommend  legislation  providing  for  the 
State  to  enter  into  the  private  business  of  this  character. 
The  report  of  the  Tennessee  Commission  deals  very  rea- 
sonably with  this  question.  They  say : 

'  *  We  are  in  grave  doubt  whether  the  volume  of  busi- 
ness involved  in  the  administration  of  a  State  Adminis- 
tered Compensation  Fund  in  Tennessee  would  justify  the 
large  expense  incidental  to  the  establishment  and  opera- 
tion of  such  a  fund,  with  its  elaborate  machinery  and  ex- 
pensive organization  ramifying  through  every  portion  of 
the  State. 

"We  adhere  to  the  view,  as  a  sound  principle  of  our 
form  of  government,  that  the  State  should  never  embark 
in  any  form  of  business  undertaking  unless  the  reasons 
for  it  are  so  overwhelming  as  to  amount  substantially  to 
an  unavoidable  necessity,  and  then  only  when  it  is  obvious 

15 


that  such  business  cannot  be  adequately  or  satisfactorily 
conducted  under  private  initiative.  It  is  certainly  ap- 
parent that  if  this  view  be  sound  and  if  insurance  of  this 
character  be  considered  a  business,  no  justification  can 
be  found,  certainly  at  this  time  and  in  this  early  stage  of 
the  development  of  workmen's  compensation  legislation, 
for  state  insurance  in  Tennessee. 

"The  circumstances  surrounding  a  politically -admin- 
istered business  of  this  character  are  not  such  as  to  lend 
themselves  to  that  efficient,  economical  and  satisfactory 
management  which  is  a  prime  necessity  in  the  conduct  of 
such  an  enterprise,  and  the  potential  danger  of  the  use  of 
such  an  organization  for  political  purposes  should  not 
be  overlooked. 

1  i  These  being  our  views,  we  have  decided  not  to  rec- 
ommend any  form  of  State  Insurance. ' ' 

This  same  question  is  discussed  by  the  "Labor 
World "  of  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  a  paper  published  in  the  in- 
terests of  the  laboring  men.  The  editor  says : 

"History  has  proven  that  there  is  nothing  more  de- 
ceptive than  reliance  on  laws  affecting  reforms  in  per- 
sonal habit,  business  methods  and  industrial  success. 
Whenever  law  has  attempted  to  do  for  the  people  what 
the  people  can  do  for  themselves,  there  has  been  disap- 
pointment all  round ;  and,  the  curious  fact  about  the  mat- 
ter has  always  been  that  those  disappointed  ones  have 
not  only  failed  to  perceive  the  impotency  of  law  in  the 
case,  but  they  have  insisted  on  trying  to  remedy  their 
disappointment  by  demanding  'more  laws'  as  a  means  of 
bolstering  up  the  previous  law.  In  turn  this  'bolstering' 
law  has  also  disappointed,  and  then  again  the  deceived 
people  have  once  more  clamored  for  still  'more  law.'  And 
so  it  has  gone  on  and  on.  Each  law  designed  to  perform 
the  duties  of  the  people  instead  of  making  the  way  clear 
for  the  people  to  attend  to  their  own  affairs,  has  only  in- 
cited stronger  desires  for  more  legislation. 

"All  of  the  foregoing  leads  to  the  question:  Have 
the  more  or  less  monopolistic  compulsory  state  compen- 
sation funds  in  Ohio,  New  York,  Washington  and  West 
Virginia  served  the  wage  workers  better,  or  as  well  as 
private  companies  could  have  done?  We  hold  that  they 
have  not  done  so,  even  under  handicaps  imposed  on  the 
companies ;  and,  to  this  answer  we  add  the  vital  fact  that 

16 


the  law  makes  compensation  just  as  certain  under  private 
companies  as  it  does  under  the  state  fund,  but  there  is 
no  guarantee  for  expeditious  operation  under  the  state 
fund." 

We  might  quote  volumes  on  this  point  from  dif- 
ferent reports  and  bills  throughout  the  states,  but  we 
deem  it  unnecessary,  and  we  will  conclude  this  part  of  our 
report  by  saying  that  we  are  opposed  to  state  insurance, 
or  indeed  to  any  state  interference  with  private  business. 
>Io  monopoly  can  be  trusted.  It  makes  no  difference 
whether  it  is  operated  by  a  state  or  private  individual.  It 
can  assume  dictatorial  terms  and  be  uncompromising  in 
its  administration. 

The  fifth  and  last  subdivision  of  the  bill  that  your 
commission  submit  to  you  is  Part  V,  entitled 

Definitions  and  Miscellaneous  Provisions. 

This  we  need  not  discuss,  as  it  is  practically  a  copy 
of  the  Indiana  law  on  this  subject,  and  we  might  say  a 
copy  of  most  laws.  We  will  state,  however,  that  a  provis- 
ion is  made  for  the  payment  of  the  expenses  of  the  admin- 
istration. Section  81  reads  as  follows: 

"Appropriation.  For  the  purpose  of  paying  salaries 
and  expenses  of  members  of  Industrial  Board  and  its  em- 
ployes the  sum  of  $25,000  a  year,  or  as  much  thereof  as 
may  be  necessary,  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  mon- 
eys in  the  State  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated." 

Section  83  reads : 

"Section  83.  This  Act  shall  take  effect  on  July  1, 
1917,  except  Part  III,  with  the  exception  of  Sec.  67,  shall 
take  effect  upon  approval." 

Part  III  is  the  one  in  regard  to  administration,  which 
would  have  to  take  effect  at  once,  in  order  to  make  proper 
preparation ;  and  Section  67  has  reference  to  the  report- 
ing of  accidents  to  the  Board. 

There  are  a  few  questions  that  are  important  in  re- 
gard to  this  law  to  which  your  Commission  feel  they  should 
refer.  The  first  one  is  the  question,  "Is  such  a  statute 
necessary;  what  reason  can  we  give  for  going  to  so  great 

17 


expense  in  substituting  a  statute  of  this  sort  for  the  or- 
dinary liability  of  the  employer  to  the  employe?  What 
ivill  the  public  gain,  or  indeed  what  or  who  will  be  bene- 
fited? Above  all,  will  the  injured  wage  earner  or  his 
dependent  wife  and  children  get  value  received  for  that 
ivhich  he  and  they  are  yielding?  These  are  questions 
that  must  be  answered,  and  the  latter  must  be  answered 
in  the  affirmative,  or  the  law  will  be  a  failure. 

The  main  principle  underlying  this  proposed  statute 
is  that  the  business  in  which  the  workingmen  are  engaged 
should  assume  the  expenses  of  all  accidents,  whether  it 
be  for  a  broken  wheel,  a  broken  mandril  in  the  machine,  or 
the  broken  limb  of  an  employe ;  that  the  latter  is  just  as 
much  a  legitimate  part  of  the  expense  of  operating  the 
business  as  the  former.  In  other  words,  that  all  acci- 
dents should  be  deemed  a  part  of  the  expense  of  the  busi- 
ness or  manufacturing  establishments,  and,  like  every 
other  expense  of  such  business,  should  be  borne  by  the 
institution  that  operates  it ;  and  that  in  the  last  and  final 
analysis,  the  public  who  use  the  product  of  such  business, 
as  it  should  do,  will  have  to  bear  the  burden  of  the  ex- 
penses that  such  injury  entails,  which  under  the  employ- 
er's liability  laws  heretofore  resorted  to  by  the  injured 
employe,  was  wholly  cast  upon  the  employer  and  the 
families  or  neighbors  of  the  unfortunate  victims. 

The  first  thought  that  this  proposed  law  suggests  to 
one  having  given  no  consideration  to  it,  is  that  such  a  law 
may  be  denying  the  employe  some  important  right,  that 
it  is  taking  away  from  him  some  valuable  asset  and  is 
giving  him  in  return  something  of  less  value.  This  thought 
comes  from  the  fact  that  now  and  again  some  injured  em- 
ploye brings  an  action  at  common  law  and  a  jury  awards 
the  plaintiff  a  large  sum  of  money,  ranging  from  $2,000 

18 


to  $10,000.  The  public  hear  of  this  exceptional  case  and 
are  disposed  to  think  that  all  injured  employes  are  or 
can  be  likewise  treated ;  that  every  injured  employe  has  a 
good  cause  of  action,  and  that  all  he  has  to  do  is  to  place 
his  complaint  before  a  court  and  jury  and  they  will  award 
him  damages.  The  public  do  not  understand,  or  if  they 
do,  they  have  forgotten,  that  there  are  many  injured  em- 
ployes who  bring  suits  and  get  but  little.  Still  a  greater 
number  of  cases  have  no  cause  of  action,  and  they  are  not 
entitled  to  any  consideration.  It  is  certainly  not  general- 
ly understood  that  only  about  ten  or  twelve  per  cent  of 
the  injured  employes  ever  receive  compensation  as  a  re- 
sult of  a  suit  at  law,  and  that  at  least  fully  one-third, 
if  not  one-half,  of  this  compensation  is  lost  in  litigation : 
nor  is  it  generally  understood,  but  it  is  an  established 
fact,  that  about  50  per  cent  of  all  accident  cases  are 
caused  from  the  risk  of  the  business,  and  that  about  26 
per  cent  of  the  accidents  take  place  through  the  negJigence 
of  the  employe  himself;  that  about  12  per  cent  are 
by  the  negligence  of  a  fellow  servant  or  the 
employe  and  employer  together,  leaving  about  12  per  cent 
that  happens  through  the  negligence  of  the  employer 
alone.  It  would,  therefore,  be  readily  conceded  that  50 
per  cent,  or  thereabout,  of  the  accidents  are  caused 
through  no  one's  fault,  but  through  the  necessary  risk  of 
the  business  In  this  connection  your  Commission  will 
take  the  liberty  of  referring  to  the  very  able  address  of 
the  Honorable  George  Sutherland  before  the  United 
States  Senate.  Senator  Sutherland  in  that  address  quotes 
from  a  speech  of  Mr.  Boyd,  who  is  at  the  head  of  the  Ohio 
Commission,  and  who  has  given  this  matter  of  the  work- 
men's compensation  law  a  most  thorough  investiga- 
tion. In  summing  up  his  argument  on  the  question  of 
the  necessity  for  some  such  a  law,  Mr.  Boyd  says : 

II 


"The  United  States  employer's  liability  act,  which 
practically  did  the  same  thing  and  introduced  a  new  doc- 
trine, the  doctrine  of  comparative  negligence  as  between 
the  employer  and  the  employes,  so  that  the  historical  evo- 
lution of  the  problem  itself  shows  that  the  common-law 
remedy  is  a  failure;  you  cannot  adjust  the  matter  by 
modifying  the  common-law  defenses  or  taking  away  the 
common-law  defenses.  Now,  the  investigations  of  New 
York  State,  of  Ohio,  of  Illinois,  and  the  Eussell  Sage 
Commission,  and  the  Allegheny  Committee  of  Pittsburg, 
Pa.,  show  the  following  results: 

i  i  In  New  York  State,  on  an  average,  a  workman  dur- 
ing the  last  eight  or  ten  years  recovered  in  something 
like  12  per  cent  of  the  cases.  That  is,  where  there  were 
414,000  accidents  reported  the  liability  insurance  com- 
panies, something  or  other  was  paid  in  52,000  of  them, 
or  about  one  case  in  eight. 

"In  Ohio,  in  the  settlement  of  65,800  cases  in  Cuya- 
hoga  County  in  a  period  of  about  eight  years,  something 
was  paid  in  less  than  6  per  cent  of  the  cases,  and  in  Il- 
linois something  was  paid  in  eight  per  cent  of  the  cases. 

' '  Now,  if  you  take  the  economic  operation  of  the  Ger- 
man insurance  acts,  which  in  1887  had  4,000,000  employes 
under  them  and  today  have  27,000,000  workmen  and  their 
dependents  insured  against  the  loss  of  wages  arising  out 
of  industrial  accidents,  you  can  attribute  on  the  average 
only  18  per  cent  of  the  cases  to  the  negligence  of  the  em- 
ployer and  about  28  per  cent  of  the  accidents  to  the  negli- 
gence of  the  employes,  while  in  44  per  cent  of  the  acci- 
dents the  causes  are  due  to  the  natural,  inevitable  risks 
of  the  business  and  10  per  cent  to  the  combined  negli- 
gence of  the  employer  and  the  employe. " 

From  this  quotation,  it  would  seem  pretty  conclusive 
that  only  about  one-tenth  of  the  personal  injury  cases  are 
ever  heard  in  court,  and  about  one-half  of  these  recover 
damages. 

Speaking  further  from  the  Germany  insurance  sta- 
tistics, which  are  about  the  same  as  in  the  United  States, 
they  show  that : 

The  percentage  of  accidents  that  are  due  to  the  negli- 
gence of  the  employer  was  about  20.47  per  cent;  that 
those  due  to  the  negligence  of  the  employe  26.56  per  cent ; 
due  to  the  negligence  of  both  parties,  8.01  per  cent;  due 

20 


to  inevitable  risks  of  the  industries  and  other  causes, 
44.96  per  cent.  That  was  the  experience  in  1887.  In 
1897,  ten  years  later,  the  statistics  showed  that  the  in- 
juries due  to  the  negligence  of  the  employer  were  17.30 
per  cent ;  of  the  employe  39.44  per  cent ;  of  both  parties, 
10.14  per  cent;  and  due  to  the  inevitable  risks  of  the  in- 
dustries, 42.82  per  cent.  Ten  years  later  the  statistics 
showed  that  the  employer  was  guilty  of  16.91  per  cent; 
the  employe,  28.90  per  cent,  and  both  parties  9.94  per 
cent,  and  due  to  the  inevitable  risk  of  the  business,  44.36 
per  cent. 

It  would  seem  from  what  your  Commission  have  stated 
and  from  what  your  Commission  have  quoted  above,  that 
the  proposition  above  mentioned  in  relation  to  fairness  of 
this  bill  to  the  employe  is  beyond  question,  and  that  some 
law,  some  rule  of  conduct  to  meet  the  problem  of  work- 
men's compensation  for  accidents  is  necessary. 

The  next  point  in  this  particular  subject  and  in  con- 
nection with  it,  is  how  do  the  workingmen  themselves  feel 
about  this  matter.    To  start  out  with,  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  law  is  in  the  nature  of  an  accident  insurance 
to    them.    It    is    a    compromise    on    both    sides.    No 
one  of  the  injured  workmen  know  whether  he  will  be  in- 
jured, and  if  he  is,  whether  he  will  be  one  who  will  re- 
ceive a  large  verdict  at  the  hands  of  a  jury  after  years  of 
litigation,  or  whether  he  will  be  one  of  the  90  per  cent  who 
never  get  anything.    Besides  this,  the  workman  with  total 
disability  receiving  from  $2,000  to  $10,000,  or  the  repre- 
sentatives of  a  deceased  from  $3,000  to  $8,000,  must  bear 
in  mind  that  about  one-half  of  this  amount  is  wasted  in 
litigation,  even  if  he  is  one  of  those  who  are  injured  sole- 
ly on  the  ground  of  his  employer's  negligence.     So  the 
sums  to  be  finally  recovered  are  not  so  different  between 
the  maximum  amount  given  in  the  workmen's  compen- 
sation and  the  amount  that  is  realized  by  the  most  for- 
tunate litigant  under  the  old  system.    From  the  working- 

21 


men's  standpoint  and  the  employer's  interest,  there  can 
be  no  question  about  the  benefit  to  the  workingmen  as  a 
general  proposition.  This  has  been  realized  by  most  un- 
ions, and  most  all  of  the  heads  of  organized  labor.  The 
Honorable  George  Sutherland  in  his  United  States  Sen- 
ate speech  refers  to  this  fact,  and  makes  the  following 
statements,  which  we  are  again  taking  the  opportunity 
and  liberty  of  quoting : 

' '  First  of  all,  I  call  attention  to  the  statement  of  Mr. 
W.  G.  Lee,  who  is  president  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Rail- 
road Trainmen  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Lee  came  be- 
fore the  commission  and  spoke  for  that  entire  member- 
ship of  over  100,000  railroad  trainmen. 

"Mr.  Lee  says: 

"  '  I  wish  to  go  on  record  at  this  time  as  unqualified- 
ly favoring  a  workmen's  compensation  act  as  a  result  of 
resolutions  passed  by  the  last  two  biennial  conventions 
of  our  organizations.  Just  what  form  will  be  most  satis- 
factory to  both  employer  and  employee  is  a  question,  but 
we  believe  that  as  far  as  possible  litigation  should  stop  as 
between  the  employee  and  employer.  We  believe  that 
whatever  money  is  disbursed  by  the  employer  should  go 
to  those  disabled  and  not  a  large  proportion  or  percentage 
to  attorneys  or  others,  as  is  the  case  at  present. ' 

"Mr.  Sines,  who  was  the  Vice-President  and  Treas- 
urer of  the  Railroad  Trainmen,  indorsed  the  bill  in  lan- 
guage as  follows : 

"  'I  want  to  say  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  from  the 
standpoint  of  my  organization,  although  we  believe  and 
feel  that  the  provision,  in  so  far  as  it  covers  the  number 
of  years  is  concerned,  should  be  extended,  it  will  have 
the  support  of  my  organization  as  an  organization.' 

"Mr.  Garretson,  President  of  the  Order  of  Railway 
Conductors,  representing  48,000  men,  indorsed  the  bill  as 
follows : 

"  'I  am  willing  to  surrender  my  broader  ideas  in 
regard  to  many  of  those  provisions,  and  to  give,  along 
with  the  organization  which  I  represent,  cordial  support 
to  the  report  of  the  commission  as  it  will  be  formu- 
lated.' " 


In  the  same  speech  of  Honorable  George  Suther- 
land, he  quotes  Mr.  W.  E.  Stone,  Vice-President  of  the 
Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers,  representing  69,- 
739  men,  in  these  words : 

"  Speaking  as  the  chief  executive  of  the  engineers,  I 
want  to  say  that  your  bill  is  going  to  have  the  support  of 
the  Brotherhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers.  We  are  going 
to  do  everything  we  can  to  have  it  enacted  into  law." 

Mr.  Arthur  E.  Holder,  legislative  representative  of 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  representing  60  per 
cent  of  the  railroad  men  of  the  country,  had  been  sent  to 
England  prior  to  the  consideration  of  this  question,  and 
after  devoting  some  time  to  the  study  of  the  question, 
returned  to  this  country,  and  before  the  Commission 
made  the  following  statement: 

*  *  In  the  first  place,  I  want  to  say  that  the  men  who  I, 
directly  and  indirectly,  represent,  want  the  compensation 
principle  established.  We  are  not  going  to  be  too  insistent 
upon  conditions.  We  believe  that  it  is  one  of  the  growths 
of  civilization,  one  of  the  advanced  movements  to  protect 
humanity,  and  we  believe  that  when  this  principle  is  once 
established  in  the  United  States  that  it  will  not  be  long 
before  the  intelligence  of  the  people  will  find  all  the  ways 
needed  to  make  the  act  applicable  to  every  requirement. 
It  is  not  for  the  sake  of  getting  pelf  or  money  that  we 
want  the  compensation  principle  established;  that  is  a 
secondary  point.  We  want  the  principle  established,  Mr. 
Chairman,  for  the  sake  of  saving  pain  and  suffering  and 
unnecessary  neglect,  that  we  think  that  in  this  advanced 
age  of  the  twentieth  century  there  is  little  occasion  for. 
And  we  hope  that  by  the  penalties  attached  to  a  compen- 
sation bill  many  hands  and  many  feet  may  be  left  upon 
men,  who  might  otherwise  be  unnecessarily  maimed. ' ' 

Mr.  Gompers,  who  is  President  of  the  American  Fed- 
eration of  Labor,  appeared  before  the  Commission,  and 
the  Honorable  George  Sutherland  quotes  him  as  follows : 

"I  would  rather  see  ail  who  were  injured  and  their 
dependents  fairly  cared  for  than  to  have  one  get  a  large 
verdict  or  a  large  amount  and  the  remainder  fritter  away 
their  time  in  litigation.  ' ' 

23 


In  the  report  upon  the  operation  of  the  state  compen- 
sation laws  by  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  dated 
in  the  year  1914,  the  commission  makes  this  statement  on 
page  21: 

"The  introduction  of  workmen's  compensation  laws 
has  opened  the  way  for  the  establishment  of  more  ami- 
cable relations  between  employers  and  employes.  In 
their  operation,  the  acts  necessarily  provide  an  opportun- 
ity for  workmen  and  employers  to  meet  and  consider  ques- 
tions relating  to  compensation  and  accident  prevention. 
Indirectly,  these  meetings,  promoting  as  they  do  acquain- 
tanceship between  employers  and  workmen,  lead  to  the 
discussion  of  other  questions  which  affect  their  common 
interest.  As  a  consequence,  many  of  the  causes  of  mis- 
understanding which  arose  because  of  the  failure  of  the 
two  sides  to  confer  have  been  removed,  and  a  better  and 
mutually  advantageous  relationship  has  been  established. 

"Under  the  old  system  the  litigation  growing  out  of 
industrial  accidents  led  to  discord  and  friction,  with  in- 
jurious consequences  which  could  not  be  calculated.  The 
tendency  was  distinctly  to  drive  the  employer  and  the 
employe  farther  apart.  In  contrast  to  that  system,  the 
operation  of  compensation  laws  has  tended  to  bring  about 
a  community  of  interest  and  a  difference  in  sentiment 
that  has  improved  even  the  trade  relationship.  Compen- 
sation in  an  industry  has  been  a  benefit  to  the  whole  of  it 
and  all  engaged  in  it. ' ' 

In  conclusion  of  the  above  subject,  your  Commission 
think  they  can  say  without  hesitation  and  without  suc- 
cessful contradiction  that  the  laboring  unions  and  the  la- 
boring men  are  in  favor  of  the  compensation  principle, 
and  your  Commission  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  enter 
more  fully  into  discussion  on  this  particular  part  of  the 
subject. 

The  next  important  question  that  we  have  to  dis- 
cuss, and  it  will  be  done  very  briefly,  is  the  one  that  nat- 
urally would  follow  the  question  of  the  workmen's  con- 
sideration of  this  law,  and  that  is,  how  is  it  going  to  af- 
fect the  employers  and  how  is  it  going  to  affect  their  busi- 
ness, what  is  their  attitude  toward  it,  why  should  the 

24 


employer  accept  this  somewhat  additional  burden— ad- 
ditional burden,  at  least,  in  the  early  periods  of  its  work- 
ings? 

In  addition  to  what  we  have  heretofore  stated  in  re- 
lation to  this  law  being  advantageous  to  the  employers, 
we  can  say  in  a  general  way  that  we  are  prepared  to  sus- 
tain the  following  propositions.  We  believe  that  the  em- 
ployers can  well  afford  to  accept  the  provisions  of  the 
Compensation  Act.  We  believe  that  it  is  far  ahead  of  the 
Employer's  Liability  Act.  Under  the  latter  v/hen  the 
matter  of  the  injured  employe  comes  before  the  court, 
practically  all  the  common  law  defenses  of  the  employer 
are  modified  and  some  of  them  entirely  removed,  and  the 
employer  was,  and  is  almost  helpless  before  a  .jury  of  men 
whose  sympathies  are  bound  to  be  against  the  employer 
and  in  favor  of  the  injured  employe.  When  a 
workman  is  injured,  the  sympathy  of  the  whole  shop 
where  he  is  employed  is  aroused;  it  is  against  the  em- 
ployer and  in  favor  of  the  injured  party.  There  is  a  good 
deal  of  doubt  whether  or  not  under  this  condition  of 
things,  the  workmen  who  are  not  injured  can  give  ef- 
ficient service  with  the  feeling  that  they  have,  half  an- 
tagonistic and  half  hate  against  the  employer  who  is 
possibly  their  best  friend.  There  is  a  mutual  distrust  be- 
tween the  employer  and  the  employe.  This  bill  seeks  to 
remove  this  difficulty.  It  endeavors  to  settle  this  class 
of  cases  in  a  friendly  way,  each  one  yielding  something 
and  both  in  the  long  run  being  benefited.  Your  Commis- 
sion can  conscientiously  say  that  they  believe  that  if  there 
is  no  other  benefit  to  the  employer  obtained  from  this  bill 
than  the  fact  that  it  is  a  help  to  smooth  the  way  to  better 
feelings  and  more  confidence  between  employer  and  em- 
ployee, it  is  sufficient  to  justify  the  extra  expense  that  the 
employer  will  have  to  pay. 

25 


In  concluding  this  report  we  will  truly  say  that  when 
we  started  an  examination  of  the  matter  of  the  Work- 
men's Compensation  Act,  we  had  very  grave  doubts  of 
its  feasibility.  We  doubted  the  justice  of  the  measure, 
both  as  to  the  employe  and  to  the  employer.  But  we  can 
truly  say,  the  more  we  have  examined  the  principle  on 
which  this  proposed  law  is  based,  the  more  we  are  con- 
vinced that  it  is  a  proper  step  towards  the  solution  of 
one  of  the  most  vexed  problems  of  our  present  civiliza- 
tion. Of  course,  the  two  most  important  features  of  this 
bill,  or  any  bill  of  this  character  are :  First,  is  the  sched- 
ule for  injuries  just  to  the  workingmen;  second, 
is  the  manner  of  collecting  the  dues  just  to  the  employer? 
All  the  rest  of  the  law  is  simply  machinery — it  is  simply 
means  to  an  end. 

Eeferring  to  the  matter  of  the  Board,  whose  duty  it 
is  to  administer  this  law,  we  doubt  somewhat  the  wisdom 
of  limiting  them  in  their  powers  in  the  matter  of  the 
schedule  as  we  now  have  it.  We  believe  the  time 
will  come  when  this  schedule  of  prices  will  be  modi- 
fied and  practically  be  done  away  with.  We  believe  the 
time  will  come  when  the  Board  will  have  power  to  say 
to  one  employe  who  has  lost  a  foot,  that  he  will  receive  so 
much,  and  to  another  employe,  who  has  had  the  same 
trouble,  that  he  will  receive  so  much;  it  may  be  an  in- 
crease or  a  decrease.  The  former  may  be  a  man  with  a 
wife  and  one  child;  the  latter  may  have  a  wife  and  ten 
children.  The  former  may  not  be  so  disabled  after  his 
recovery  that  he  cannot  enter  his  former  occupation.  The 
latter  may  be  so  disabled  that  he  cannot  perform  his  for- 
mer duties.  That  these  two  classes  of  cases  should  be 
treated  just  alike  seems  anything  but  just.  We  might 
make  many  illustrations  of  this  kind,  but  it  is  not  neces- 
sary. 

26 


As  we  have  stated  above,  this  is  a  step  in  the  right  di- 
rection. It  may  not  meet  all  the  wants  of  the  workingmen, 
and  it  may  not  cover  all  the  demands  of  the  employer. 
But  we  can  say  truly  that  we  do  not  expect  to  recommend 
a  law  on  this  subject,  or  indeed  on  any  other  subject,  that 
is  perfect  or  nearly  so.  As  time  goes  on,  however,  it  can 
be  amended  and  modified  to  meet  the  wants  of  society. 

We  turn  this  proposed  law  over  to  the  members  of 
the  Legislature,  and  the  members-elect,  with  the  hope  that 
it  will  pass,  practically  as  it  is,  to  form  a  broad,  firm  foun- 
dation for  this  necessary  legislation,  not  claiming,  as 
aforesaid,  that  it  is  perfect,  but  considering  the  law,  as 
recommended,  as  conservative,  reasonably  considerate  of 
all  parties  and  sufficient  for  present  initiatory  needs. 

Very  respectfully, 

DON  B.  COLTON,  Chairman 
LE  GEAND  YOUNG 
IRA  E.  BROWNING 
H.B.WINDSOR 
E.  C.  GEMMELL 
CHAELES  H.  PEAESON 


Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  November  1st,  1916. 


27 


REPORT  OF  H.  K.  RUSSELL 


Member  of  the  Utah  Employers'   Liability  and  Workmen's 
Compensation   Commission. 


To  the  Honorable  the  Governor,  and  the  Members  and 
Members-elect  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
Utah,  the  Year  1917. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen : 

On  March  1, 1916, 1  had  the  honor  to  be  appointed  by 
Governor  William  Spry  as  a  member  of  a  Commission  to 
Inquire  into  the  Question  of  Employers'  Liability  and 
Other  Matters,  pursuant  to  an  act  passed  by  the  1915 
session  of  the  Utah  Legislature.  The  Commission  was 
composed  of  the  following:  Senator  Don  B.  Colton, 
Eepresentative  Ira  R.  Browning,  Le  Grand  Young,  E.  C. 
Gemmel,  H.  B.  Windsor,  Charles  H.  Pearson  and  H.  K. 
Russell. 

The  Commission  had  several  meetings  in  Salt  Lake 
City  and  discussed  the  laws  of  the  States  which  have  Em- 
ployers '  Liability  and  Workmen's  Compensation  meas- 
ures in  operation. 

During  these  meetings  there  developed  a  wide  dif- 
ference of  opinion  among  the  members  of  the  Commission 
regarding  several  important  matters  pertaining  to  com- 
pensation laws,  but  the  majority  of  the  Commission  final- 
ly agreed  on  the  proposed  law  which  is  submitted  and 
signed  by  the  major  portion  of  this  Commission. 

The  entire  Commission  was  agreed  that  the  principle 
of  a  compensation  law  is  just  and  that  a  law  of  this  nature 
should  be  on  our  statute  books.  I  personally  concur  in  this 
view  of  the  matter. 

But  I  have  not  signed  the  report  submitted  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Commission,  for  several  reasons,  and  I  am 
herewith  submitting  in  a  brief  manner  my  objections  and 

28 


exceptions  to  thq  proposed  law.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
working  men  and  women  should  have  had  more  consid- 
eration given  them  than  has  been  accorded  them  in  this 
measure,  and  for  that  reason  I  cannot  conscientiously 
sign  the  majority  report,  although  I  hope  to  see  a  com- 
pensation law  enacted  by  your  honorable  body  which  will 
accomplish  the  results  for  which  laws  of  this  nature  were 
intended — a  law  which  will  be  absolutely  fair  to  all  con- 
cerned. 

During  the  sessions  of  the  Commission  I  endeavored 
to  have  incorporated  into  the  proposed  law  some  features 
which  seemed  to  me  to  be  just  and  reasonable,  but  the 
majority  did  not  concur  in  my  views  and  they  were  not 
accepted.  In  this  report  I  will  touch  on  these  features 
briefly,  as  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  submit  a  great 
mass  of  figures  and  reading  matter  for  your  considera- 
tion. However,  I  believe  these  features  should  be  written 
into  the  Utah  compensation  law,  and  will  leave  it  to  your 
sense  of  justice  and  fairness  to  decide. 

Exceptions. 

I  cannot  agree  with  the  majority  of  the  Commission 
on  the  following  sections  of  the  proposed  law,  and  in  my 
opinion,  to  be  just  and  fair,  they  should  be  amended : 

According  to  Section  9,  this  Act  shall  not  apply  to 
those  regularly  employing  less  than  four,  except  in  the 
case  of  State  or  Municipal  corporations.  In  my  opinion, 
if  a  workman  is  injured  or  killed  during  the  course  of 
his  employment,  he  or  his  dependents  should  receive  the 
benefits  of  the  compensation  law,  and  I  can  see  no  good 
reason  to  deny  them  these  benefits  simply  because  his 
employer  did  not  regularly  employ  five  or  more.  If  a 
workman  working  for  the  same  employer  with  three  other 
workmen  is  injured,  why  should  he  not  receive  compen- 
sation just  the  same  as  if  there  had  been  four  others 
working  with  him  at  the  time?  The  only  argument 
against  this  is  that  other  States  make  exceptions  in  this 


case.  Nevertheless,  I  can  see  no  good  reason  for  making 
this  exception,  and  I  believe  it  should  be  amended  to  read 
so  that  the  injured  or  killed  workman  should  receive  the 
benefits  of  the  law  even  though  he  be  the  only  workman 
regularly  employed.  There  may  possibly  be  some  good 
reason  for  excluding  casual  employes  in  the  service  of 
employers  who  have  only  such  employes,  but  even  in  that 
case  I  believe  the  policies  could  be  so  drawn  as  to  include 
casual  as  well  as  regular  employes. 

Section  25  provides  that  during  the  first  thirty  days 
after  an  injury  the  employer  shall  furnish,  free  of  charge, 
"in  the  absence  of  a  medical  and  ' hospital'  contract  or 
agreement, "  an  attending  physician  and  such  surgical 
and  hospital  service  and  supplies  as  may  be  deemed  neces- 
sary. Section  26  limits  the  amount  to  be  paid  by  the  em- 
ployer to  $100,  "and  may  be  abrogated  entirely  by  mu- 
tual agreement  between  employers  and  employes/'  etc. 
Subsection  (b)  of  Section  26  then  allows  employes  to  be 
assessed  $1  per  month  for  each  employe,  or  even  more  in 
certain  cases.  It  appears  to  me  that  if  the  law  is  adopted 
as  it  reads,  the  injured  employes  will  not  receive  free 
medical  or  hospital  attendance  in  many  cases.  All  that 
will  be  necessary  for  employers  who  do  not  wish  to  pay 
for  this  service  to  do  will  be  to  inform  their  employes 
they  wish  to  draw  up  a  "medical  and  hospital  contract." 
In  that  case  there  will  be  nothing  for  the  employes  to  do 
but  to  agree  to  this  plan,  and  the  result  will  be  that  the 
employes  will  have  to  pay  $1  a  month  each,  which  in  any 
case  is  too  large  an  amount.  Therefore,  I  believe  this 
portion  of  the  proposed  law  would  be  much  more  satis- 
factory and  fair  if  it  should  simply  state  that  the  em- 
ployer should  be  required  to  furnish  necessary  medical, 
surgical  and  hospital  services  and  supplies  for  a  reason- 
able period  (to  be  determined  by  the  Industrial  Board), 
and  that  the  Board  should  be  empowered  to  establish  a 

30 


schedule  of  physicians  *  and  hospital  fees  and  to  control 
all  such  charges. 

Waiting  Period. 

Section  28  provides  that  the  waiting  period  (the  time 
which  must  elapse  before  an  injured  workman  is  entitled 
to  compensation),  shall  be  fourteen  days.  The  majority 
report  says : 

"Certainly  it  would  be  a  thriftless  provider  who 
could  not  bridge  over  this  short  period,  and  by  omitting 
the  trivial  accidents  a  better  provision  can  be  made  for 
those  of  more  consequence. " 

I  cannot  agree  with  the  majority  that  an  accident 
which  would  cause  a  workman  to  be  absent  from  his  work 
for  a  period  of  time  approaching  two  weeks  is  a  trivial 
one.  A  trivial  accident  would  possibly  be  one  which 
would  cause  him  to  remain  away  from  his  work  two  or 
three  days.  Some  corporations  even  now  pay  their  em- 
ployes who  might  be  injured  their  full  wages  should  they 
be  absent  from  their  work  only  one  day,  and  yet  it  is  pro- 
posed that  a  workman  must  be  incapacitated  for  over  two 
weeks  before  he  is  entitled  to  one-half  of  his  average 
wages.  To  my  mind  this  is  a  very  unjust  provision  in 
this  proposed  law,  and  one  which  I  cannot  possibly  agree 
with.  In  my  opinion  the  waiting  period  should  be  not 
longer  than  three  days  in  any  case,  and  in  some  cases  it 
should  begin  with  the  disability  of  the  workman.  Several 
States  have  a  waiting  period  of  from  three  to  seven  days, 
among  them  being  Illinois,  Louisiana,  Maryland,  Nevada, 
Ohio,  Texas,  West  Virginia,  Wisconsin,  and  also  the 
United  States  law.  Some  have  no  waiting  period  at  all. 
among  these  being  Oregon,  Washington  and  also  Porto 
Rico.  I  think  three  days  should  be  ample. 


31 


Compensation. 

In  computing  the  compensation  to  be  paid  under  this 
Act,  it  is  provided  that  an  amount  of  50  per  cent  of  the 
employes'  wages  shall  be  paid,  with  a  maximum  of  $12 
per  week  and  a  minimum  of  $5  per  week.  It  is  my  opinion 
that  50  per  cent  is  too  small  an  amount.  This  is  recog- 
nized by  many  States,  which  have  incorporated  in  their 
laws  amounts  ranging  from  66  2-3  to  65  per  cent.  The 
maximum  should  also  be  raised  to  $15  instead  of  $12. 

Total  Disability — Section  29  provides  that  50  per 
cent  shall  be  paid  for  333  1-3  weeks.  Under  this  section 
the  greatest  amount  which  would  be  received  by  a  work- 
man, even  if  incapacitated  for  the  balance  of  his  life,  and 
no  matter  what  his  earning  power  may  have  been,  would 
be  $4,000,  after  which  he  would  have  to  depend  upon  the 
charity  of  someone  until  death  relieved  him.  The  mini- 
mum amount  to  be  paid  under  this  section  would  be 
$1,666.  In  my  estimation  this  amount  is  too  small.  Twen- 
ty-three other  States  are  allowing  larger  amounts.  I 
would  suggest  the  amount  be  regulated  so  that  the  work- 
man totally  disabled  receive  65  per  cent  of  his  wages  un- 
til he  receive  $4,000,  then  40  per  cent  for  the  balance  of 
his  life. 

Partial  Disability  and  Permanent  Partial  Disability 
—Sections  30  and  31  should  be  made  to  conform  to  Total 
Disability,  so  that  the  injured  workman  receive  65  per 
cent  instead  of  50  per  cent. 

Death — Section  37  provides  that  50  per  cent  shall  be 
paid  to  dependents  for  250  weeks;  maximum,  $12  per 
week;  minimum,  $5  per  week.  Under  this  section,  the 
greatest  amount  which  would  be  paid  for  the  death  of  a 
workman  would  be  $3,000;  the  smallest  amount.  $1,250. 
Think  of  it— from  $1,250  to  $3,000  for  the  death  of  a 
workman  killed  through  the  carelessness  of  another  per- 

32 


son.  In  my  opinion  it  is  absolutely  ridiculous  and  out  of 
all  proportion  with  judgments  rendered  in  the  past  by 
courts  in  like  cases.  As  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  de- 
termine, but  two  States  have  a  smaller  maximum  than 
$3,000 — Colorado  and  Wyoming.-  Several  others  pay  a 
like  amount.  At  least  thirteen  States  have  a  maximum 
greater  than  $3,000.  Included  in  the  latter  are :  Arizona, 
$4,000;  California,  $5,000;  Nevada,  $4,000  to  $6,000; 
Texas,  $5,400;  Montana,  $4,000.  From  these  figures,  it 
appears  to  me  that  a  $3,000  maximum  for  Utah  is  entirely 
too  low.  Wages  paid  in  this  State  are  as  high  as  any  of 
the  surrounding  States  mentioned,  and  higher  than  some 
others,  and  in  view  of  this  fact,  I  am  of  the  opinion  work- 
men and  their  dependents  should  receive  at  least  an  equal 
amount  of  compensation.  I,  therefore,  would  recommend 
the  Utah  law  provide  compensation  for  dependents  of 
deceased  workmen  in  a  sum  of  not  less  than  $2,000  as  the 
minimum  and  $5,000  as  the  maximum. 

Aliens — Section  77  provides  that  aliens  and  their  de- 
pendents shall  be  entitled  to  only  one-half  benefits.  I  am 
not  in  accord  with  this  idea,  as  I  believe  it  can  have  but 
one  effect — the  discrimination  against  American  work- 
men in  favor  of  aliens  I  therefore  am  of  the  opinion 
that  the  same  compensation  should  be  paid  to  aliens  and 
their  dependents  as  are  paid  to  others  under  this  law. 

Insurance. 

As  to  the  advisability  of  establishing  a  State  insur- 
ance fund,  operated  and  governed  by  the  State,  con- 
siderable discussion  was  had  by  the  Commission,  the  ma- 
jority finally  deciding  to  recommend  that  the  Utah  law 
do  not  provide  for  State  insurance.  Personally  I  am  not 
convinced  that  a  State  fund  would  not  be  the  best  method 
to  adopt.  In  fact,  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  a  good  busi- 
ness proposition  for  the  State.  If  private  insurance  com- 

33 


panies  can  make  money  by  insuring  employes  against  ac- 
cident and  death,  why  cannot  the  State  do  the  same  thing! 
The  argument  was  put  forth  that  in  case  of  a  great  catas- 
trophe the  State  fund  would  be  bankrupt  and  the  work- 
men and  their  dependents  would  not  receive  payment  in 
full  on  their  claims.  But  it  seems  to  me  the  State  would 
be  as  likely  to  be  able  to  pay  these  claims  as  private  com- 
panies. From  information  at  hand,  the  State  funds  in 
California,  Wyoming  and  Pennsylvania,  at  least,  are  very 
successful,  and  would  appear  to  be  a  paying  business 
proposition.  It  seems  to  me  this  phase  of  the  law  should 
receive  a  thorough  investigation  before  a  final  decision 
is  made. 

Occupational  Diseases. 

As  to  occupational  diseases,  the  proposed  law  does 
not  provide  any  compensation.  In  fact,  in  Subsection 
(d)  of  Section  76  it  provides  that  "injury"  and  "per- 
sonal injury"  shall  not  include  a  disease  in  any  form  ex- 
cept as  it  shall  result  proximately  from  the  injury. 

It  is  my  opinion  a  great  mistake  has  been  made  in  not 
including  occupational  diseases  in  this  proposed  law  as  a 
cause  for  receiving  compensation.  There  are,  of  course, 
some  instances  where  employes  contract  disease  and  die, 
through  no  fault  of  the  employer,  who  does  everything  he 
can  to  have  the  best  conditions  possible  under  which  his 
employes  may  work.  In  this  case  the  employer  should 
not  suffer.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  in- 
stances where  employes  are  compelled  to  work  under 
filthy  and  unsanitary  conditions,  which  could  be  remedied 
by  the  employer  by  the  expenditure  of  a  few  dollars ;  but 
by  reason  of  his  negligence  and  his  refusal  to  provide 
sanitary  conditions,  his  employes,  through  force  of  cir- 
cumstances, are  compelled  to  work  under  these  condi- 
tions and  contract  tuberculosis  and  other  dread  diseases, 

34 


finally  succumbing  to  the  ravages  of  these  diseases,  leav- 
ing their  dependent  ones  penniless  in  many  cases,  and 
naturally  they  become  public  charges.  The  majority  of 
the  Commission  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  make  any 
provision  in  the  proposed  law  for  these  unfortunate 
workers,  and  I  now  wish  to  earnestly  ask  that  a  provision 
be  incorporated  in  the  law  which  will  compensate  those 
who  contract  disease  by  being  compelled  to  work  under 
unsanitary  conditions.  I  would  recommend  that  Sub- 
section (d)  of  Section  76  be  amended  to  so  read  that  it 
will  include  those  contracting  diseases  arising  out  of  and 
in  the  course  of  employment. 

Accident  Prevention. 

The  proposed"  bill  makes  no  provision  for  the  pre- 
vention of  accidents,  and  in  this  it  seems  to  me  the  bill  is 
faulty.  I  would  suggest  a  portion  of  the  bill  be  devoted  to 
this  subject,  dealing  with  the  safety  of  places  and  condi- 
tions under  which  employes  are  compelled  to  work,  and 
vesting  the  Industrial  Board  with  power  and  jurisdiction 
over  every  employment  in  the  State  as  may  be  necessary 
to  enforce  and  administer  the  law  so  that  all  places  of 
employment  shall  be  made  safe  and  healthful  and  the 
lives  of  workmen  be  protected  as  far  as  possible.  The 
Board  should  have  power  to  declare  what  safety  devices 
must  be  used  in  certain  employment,  and  also  to  enter 
such  places  of  employment  at  all  reasonable  times  to  see 
that  such  safety  and  sanitary  devices  are  properly  in- 
stalled and  in  use.  I  respectfully  refer  you  to  the  Mon- 
tana law  on  this  subject. 

The  foregoing  are  some  of  the  reasons  submitted  as 
being  grounds  why  I  decline  to  sign  the  report  of  the  ma- 
jority of  the  Commission.  I  respectfully  submit  them  for 
your  earnest  consideration. 

Very  respectfully, 

H.  K.  EUSSELL. 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  November  1,  1916. 

35 


The  Commission  desires  to  express  their  appreciation  to  the 
various  persons  who  are  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  report, 
and  also  to  the  following  for  valuable  assistance  rendered : 

H.  G.  Williams,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 
Utah  Fuel  Company. 

Geo.  S.  McAllister,  Salt  Lake  City. 

R.  W.  Eardley,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 
Manufacturers  Association  of  Utah. 

Geo.  Sutherland,  Washington,  D.  C. 

John  D.  Pringle,  "The  Labor  World,"  Pittsburg,  Pa. 

John  Dern,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

P.  Tecumseh  Sherman,  New  York. 

F.  Robertson  Jones,  New  York. 

Judge  George  B.  Armstrong,  Salt  Lake  City. 
Mr.  Newcomb  Cleveland,  Denver,  Colo. 

Prof.  Geo.  A.  Eaton,  Salt  Lake  City. 

Mr.  John  B.  Andrews,  New  York  City. 

American  Association  for  Labor  Legislation. 
Mr.  Royal  Meeker,  Washington. 

Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics. 

Mr.  A.  W.  Whitney,  New  York. 

National  Workmen's  Compensation  Bureau. 

Mr.  Edson  S.  Lott,  New  York  City. 

Mr.  John  T.  Stone,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Mr.  F.  Highlands  Burns,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Mr.  E.  J.  Bond,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Mr.  Alroy  S.  Phillips,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Compensation  Commission  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  C.  W.  Clausen  (Auditor),  Olympia,  Wash. 
State  Industrial  Dept. 

Mr.  Walter  G.  Cowles,  Hartford,  Conn. 
Judge  Morris  L.  Ritchie,  Salt  Lake  City. 
Mr.  A.  T.  Skerry,  New  York  City. 
John  M.  Hayes,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 


36 


TEXT  OF  THE  TENTATIVE  LAW. 

An  Act  to  promote  the  prevention  of  industrial  accidents;  to  cause  pro- 
vision to  be  made  for  adequate  medical  and  surgical  care  for  in- 
jured employees;  to  establish  rates  of  compensation  for  personal 
injuries  or  death  sustained  by  employees  in  the  course  of  em- 
ployment; to  provide  methods  for  insuring  the  payment  of  such 
compensation;  to  create  an  Industrial  Board  for  the  administra- 
tion of  the  act  and  to  prescribe  the  powers  and  duties  of  such  board. 

PART  I. 
RIGHTS  AND   REMEDIES. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Utah: 

Section  1.  That  this  act  shall  be  known  as  "The  Utah  Workman's 
Compensation  Act." 

Sec.  2.  Prom  and  after  the  taking  effect  of  this  act,  every  em- 
ployer and  every  employee,  except  as  herein  stated,  shall  be  conclusively 
presumed  to  have  accepted  the  provisions  of  this  act  respectively  to  pay 
and  accept  compensation  for  personal  injury  or  death  by  accident  arising 
out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment,  and  shall  be  bound  there- 
by, unless  he  shall  have  given  prior  to  any  accident  resulting  in  injury 
or  death  notice  to  the  contrary  in  the  manner  hereinafter  provided; 
and  a  like  presumption  shall  apply  to  such  deceased  persons,  legal  rep- 
resentatives, next  of  kin  and  dependents,  unless  they  give  notice  of 
their  intention  otherwise  within  thirty  days  after  the  death  of  such 
deceased  in  the  manner  prescribed  in  the  next  section. 

Sec.  3.  Either  an  employer  or  an  employee,  who  has  exempted 
himself,  by  [proper  notice,  from  the  operation  of  this  act,  may  at  any 
time  waive  such  exemption  and  thereby  accept  the  provisions  of  this 
act  by  giving  notice  as  herein  provided. 

The  notice  of  exemption  and  the  notice  of  acceptance  heretofore 
referred  to  shall  be  given  thirty  days  prior  to  any  accident  resulting 
in  injury  or  death,  provided  that  if  any  such  injury  occurred  less  than 
thirty  days  after  the  date  of  employment,  notice  of  such  exemption  or 
acceptance  given  at  the  time  of  employment  shall  be  sufficient  notice 
thereof.  The  notice  shall  be  in  writing  or  print  in  a  substantial  form 
prescribed  by  the  Industrial  Board  and  shall  be  given  by  the  em- 
ployer by  posting  the  same  in  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  plant,  shop, 
office,  room  or  place  where  the  employee  is  employed,  or  by  serving  it 
personally  upon  him:  and  shall  be  given  by  the  employee  by  sending  the 
same  in  a  registered  letter  addressed  to  the  employer  at  his  last  known 
residence  or  principal  place  of  business;  or  by  giving  it  personally  to  the 
employer,  or  any  of  his  agents  upon  whom  a  summons  in  civil  action  may 
be  served  under  the  laws  of  the  State. 

A  copy  of  the  notice  in  prescribed  form  shall  also  be  filed  with 
the  Industrial  Board. 

37 


Sec.  4.  Every  contract  of  service  between  any  employer  and  em- 
ployee covered  by  this  act,  written  or  implied,  now  in  operation  or 
made  or  implied  prior  to  the  .taking  effect  of  this  act,  shall,  after  this 
act  has  taken  effect,  be  presumed  to  continue;  and  every  such  con- 
tract made  subsequent  to  the  taking  effect  of  this  act  shall  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  been  made  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  act,  unless 
either  party  shall  give  notice,  as  provided  in  Section  3,  to  the  other 
party  to  such  contract  that  the  provisions  of  this  act  other  than  Sec- 
tions 6,  10,  11  and  67  are  not  intended  to  apply. 

A  like  presumption  shall  exist  equally  in  the  case  of  all  minors 
unless  notice  of  the  same  character  be  given  by  or  to  the  parent  or 
guardian  of  the  minor. 

Sec.  5.  Every  employer  who  accepts  the  compensation  provisions 
of  this  Act,  and  complies  with  the  provisions  hereof,  or  those  conducting 
his  business,  shall  only  be  liable  to  any  employee  for  personal  in- 
jury, or,  in  case  of  his  death,  to  his  personal  representatives,  depen- 
dents or  next  of  kin,  to  the  extent,  and  in  the  manner,  herein  specified, 
except  as  otherwise  provided. 

Sec.  6.  The  rights  and  remedies  herein  granted  to  an  employee, 
subject  to  this  act,  on  account  of  personal  injury,  and  in  case  of  his 
death  by  accident,  to  his  personal  representatives,  dependants,  or  next 
of  kin,  accepting  the  benefit  of  this  act,  shall  exclude  all  other  rights 
and  remedies  of  such  employee,  his  personal  representatives,  depend- 
ants, or  next  of  kin  at  common  law,  or  otherwise,  on  account  of  such 
injury  or  death;  provided,  however,  that  in  case  of  death  the  personal 
representatives,  next  of  kin  and  dependants,  as  hereinafter  defined,  in 
lieu  hereof,  may  have  a  right  of  action  against  such  employer,  and  the 
amount  recoverable  shall  not  be  subject  to  any  limitation;  but  in!  such 
action,  the  employer  shall  have  the  right  of  all  common  law  defenses 
without  modification,  as  provided  in  (Section  11  of  this  Act,  provided, 
also,  that  in  the  event  of  death  of  an  employee,  resulting  from  accident, 
if  any  of  the  personal  representatives,  next  of  kin  or  dependents  of  the 
deceased,  elects  to  sue  for  damages,  there  shall  be  no  right  to  compen- 
sation under  this  Act  in  favor  of  the  person  or  persons  bringing  such 
action. 

Sec.  7.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  relieve  any  em- 
ployer or  employee  from  penalty  for  failure  or  neglect!  to  perform  any 
statutory  duty. 

Sec.  8.  No  compensation  shall  be  allowed  for  an  injury  or  death 
due  to  the  employee's  wilful  misconduct,  including  intentional  self- 
inflicted  injury,  or  unjust  attempt  to  injure  another,  intoxication,  and 
wilful  failure  or  refusal  to  use  a  safety  appliance  or  perform  a  duty  re- 
quired by  statute.  This  provision  as  to  intoxication  shall  not  apply,  if 
the  employer  knew  or  in  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care  might  have  known 
that  the  employee  was  intoxicated  or  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  becom- 
ing intoxicated. 

The  burden  of  proof  shall  be  on  the  defendant  employer. 

Sec.  9.  This  Act,  except  Section  67,  shall  not  apply  to  casual  la- 
borers, to  those  regularly  employing  less  than  four  (except  in  the  case 

38 


of  State  or  Municipal  Corporations,  as  provided  in  Section  18),  in  the 
same  industrial  employment  for  the  sake  of  pecuniary  gain,  or  to  private 
household  or  domestic  servants,  or  to  employers  of  such  persons ;  unless 
such  employees  and  their  employers  voluntarily  elect  to  be  bound  by 
this  Act  and  the  employer  files  with  the  Industrial  Board  notice  of  such 
election. 

Sec.  10.  Every  employer  who  elects  not  to  operate  under  this  act 
shall  not  in  any  suit  at  law  by  an  employee  to  recover  damages  for 
personal  injury  or  death  by  accident  be  permitted  to  defend  any  such 
suit  at  law  upon  any  one  or  all  of  the  following  grounds : 

(a)  That  the  employee  was  negligent; 

(b)  That  the  injury  was  caused  by  the  'negligence  of  a  fellow 
employee; 

(c)  That  the  employee  had  assumed  the  risk  of  the  injury. 

Sec.  11.  Every  employee,  and  the  personal  representatives,  de- 
pendents or  next  of  kin  of  any  deceased  employee,  who  elects  not  to 
operate  under  this  act,  in  any  action  to  recover  damages  for  personal 
injury  or  death  brought  against  an  employer,  accepting  the  compensa- 
tion provisions  of  this  act,  shall  proceed  at  common  law,  and  the  em- 
ployer may  avail  himself  of  all  defenses,  including  contributory  negli- 
gence, negligence  of  fellow  servants  and  the  assumption  of  risk,  as  such 
defenses  exist  at  common  law. 

Sec.  12.  When  both  the  employer  and  employee  elect  not  to 
operate  under  this  act,  the  liability  of  the  employer  shall  be  the  same 
as  though  he  alone  had  rejected  the  terms  of  this  act,  and  in  any  suit 
brought  against  him  the  employer  shall  not  be  'permitted  to  avail  him- 
self of  any  of  the  common  law  defenses  cited  in  Section  11. 

Sec.  13.  Whenever  an  injury  for  which  compensation  is  payable 
under  this  act  shall  have  been  sustained  under  circumstances  creating 
in  some  other  person  than  the  employer  a  legal  liability  to  pay  dam- 
ages in  respect  thereto,  the  injured  employee  may  at  his  option  either 
claim  compensation  or  proceed  at  law  againat  such  other  person  to 
recover  damages  or  proceed  against  both  the  employer  and  such  other 
person,  but  he  shall  not  collect  from  both;  and  if  compensation  is 
awarded  under  this  act  the  employer  having  paid  the  compensation 
or  having  become  liable  therefor,  may  collect  in  his  own  name  or  that 
of  the  injured  employee  from  the  other  person  in  whom  legal  liability 
for  damages  exists,  the  indemnity  paid  or  payable  to  the  injured 
employee.  Any  damages  paid  by  such  other  person  shall  be  off-set 
against  and  deducted  from  the  employees'  claim  against  the  employer 
under  this  Act,  and  any  waiver  by  the  employee  of  his  right  of  action 
against  such  other  person,  made  without  consent  of  the  employer,  shall 
operate  as  a  waiver  of  all  claim  under  this  Act  against  the  employer. 

Sec.  14.  Every  contractor,  whether  principal,  intermediate  or  sub- 
contractor, shall  be  liable  for  compensation  to  any  employee  injured  while 
in  the  employ  of  any  one  of  his  sub-contractors  and  engaged  upon  the  sub- 
ject matter  of  the  contract,  to  the  same  extent  as  the  immediate  em- 
ployer. 

39 


Any  principal,  intermediate,  or  sub-contractor  who  shall  pay  com- 
pensation under  the  foregoing  provision  may  recover  such  amount  paid 
from  any  person  who  would  have  been  liable  to  pay  compensation  to 
the  injured  employee. 

Every  claim  for  compensation  under  this  section  shall  in  the  first 
instance  be  presented  to  and  instituted  against  the  immediate  em- 
ployer, but  such  proceeding  shall  not  constitute  a  waiver  of  the  em- 
ployee's rights  to  recover  compensation  under  this  act  from  the  prin- 
cipal or  intermediate  contractor,  provided  that  the  collection  of  full 
compensation  from  one  shall  bar  recovery  by  the  employee  against  any 
other,  nor  shall  he  collect  from  all  a  total  compensation  in  excess  of 
the  amount  for  which  any  of  the  said  parties  are  liable. 

This  section  shall  apply  only  in  cases  Where  the  injury  occurred, 
on,  in  or  about  the  .premises  on  which  the  principal  contractor  has 
undertaken  to  execute  work  or  which  are  otherwise  under  his  control 
or  management. 

Sec.  15.  No  contract  or  agreement,  written  or  implied,  no  rule, 
regulation  or  other  device,  shall  in  any  manner  operate  to  relieve  any 
employer  in  whole  or  in  part  of  any  obligation  created  by  this  act 
except  as  herein  provided. 

Sec.  16.  All  rights  of  compensation  granted  by  this  act  shall 
have  the  same  preference  or  priority  for  the  whole  thereof  against 
the  assets  of  the  employer  as  is  allowed  by  law  for  any  unpaid  wages 
for  labor. 

Sec.  17.  No  claim  for  compensation  under  this  act  shall  be  as- 
signable, and  all  compensation  and  claims  therefor  shall  be  exempt 
from  all  claims  of  creditors. 

Sec.  18.  The  provisions  of  this  act  shall  apply  to  employees  (other 
than  officials  as  hereinafter  defined)  of  the  State  and  all  counties, 
cities,  towns  and  other  public  corporations  within  the  State. 

Policemen  and  firemen  and  others  entitled  to  pensions  shall  be 
deemed  employees  within  the  meaning  of  this  act.  If,  however,  any 
policeman  or  fireman  or  other  person  entitled  to  a  pension  claims  com- 
pensation under  this  act,  there  sihall  be  deducted  from  such  compensa- 
tion any  sum  which  such  policeman  or  fireman  or  other  person  may  be 
entitled  to  receive  from  any  pension  or  other  benefit  fund  to  which  the 
State  or  municipal  body  may  contribute. 

Sec.  19.  This  act  except  Section  67  shall  not  apply  to  employees 
engaged  in  interstate  or  foreign  commerce,  nor  to  their  employers,  in 
case  the  laws  of  the  United  States  provide  for  compensation  or  for 
liability  for  injury  or  death  by  accident  of  such  employees. 

Sec.  20.  Every  employer  and  employee  under  this  act,  except  as 
provided  in  Section  19,  shall  be  bound  by  the  provisions  of  this  act 
whether  injury  by  accident,  or  death  resulting  from  such  injury ,  occurs 
within  the  State  or  in  some  other  state  or  in  a,  foreign  country,  pro- 
vided that  the  contract  of  employment  was  made  in  this  State  and  con- 
templated work,  labor  or  service  to  be  performed  either  generally  with- 

40 


in  this  State  or  in  direct  connection  with  some  «stabli»hment  or  office 
in  this  State. 

Sec.  21.  The  provisions  of  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  injuries  or 
death  or  to  accidents  which  occurred  prior  to  the  taking  effect  of 
this  act. 


PART  II. 
COMPENSATION  SCHEDULE. 

Sec.  22.  Every  injured  employee  or  his  representative  shall  im- 
mediately upon  the  (occurrence  of  an  injury  or  as  soon  thereafter  as 
practicable,  give  or  cause  to  be  given  to  the  employer  written  notice 
of  the  injury  and  the  employee  shall  not  be  entitled  to  physician's 
fees  or  to  any  compensation  which  may  have  accrued,  under  the 
terms  of  thisi  act,  prior  to  the  giving!  of  such  notice;  unless  it  can  be 
shown  that  the  employer,  his  agent  or  representative  had  knowledge 
of  the  injury  or  death,  or  that  the  party  required  to  give  such  notice 
had  been  prevented  from  doing  so  by  reason  of  physical  or  mental 
incapacity  or  the  fraud  or  deceit  of  some  'third  person,  or  for  equally 
good  (reason;  but  no  compensation  shall  be  payable  unless  such  writ- 
ten notice  is  given  within  thirty  days  after  the  occurrence  of  the  in- 
jury or  death,  unless  reasonable  excuse  is  made  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  Industrial  Board  for  not  giving  such  notice. 

Sec.  23.  The  notice  provided  in  the  foregoing  section  shall  state 
in  ordinary  language  the;  name  and  address  of  the  employee,  the  time, 
place,  nature  and  cause  of  the  injury  or  death,  and  shall  be  signed 
by  the  employee  or  by  a  person  on  his  behalf,  or  in  the  event  of  his 
death  by  any  one  or  more  of  his  dependants  or  by  a  person  on  their 
behalf,  or  may  be  sent  direct  to  the  Industrial  Board. 

No  defect  or  inaccuracy  in  the  notice  shall  be  a  bar  to  compensa- 
tion unless  the  employer  shall  prove  that  his  interest  was  prejudiced 
thereby,  and  then  only  to  the  extent  of  such  prejudice. 

Said  notice  shall  be  given  personally  to  the  employer  or  any  of  his 
agents  upon  whom  a  summons  in  civil  action  may  be  served  under  the 
laws  of  (the  State,  or  may  be  sent  by  registered  letter  addressed  to  the 
employer  at  his  last  known  residence  or  principal  place  of  business. 

Sec.  24.  The  right  to  compensation  under  this  act  shall  be  for- 
ever barred  unless  within  one  year  after  the  injury  or  if  death  re- 
sults therefrom,  within  one  year  after  such  death,  a  claim  for  com- 
pensation thereunder  shall  be  filed  with  the  Industrial  Board. 

Sec.  25.  During  the  first  thirty  days  after  an  injury  the  employer 
shall  furnish  or  cause  to  be  furnished  free  of  charge,  in  the  absence  of 
a  medical  and  "hospital"  contract  or  agreement  as  hereinafter  pro- 
vided, to  the  injured  employee,  and  the  employee  shall  accept,  and 
during  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  remainder  of  his  disability  resulting 
from  the  injury,  the  employer  may,  at  his  own  option,  continue  to  fur- 
nish or  cause  to  be  furnished,  free  of  charge,  in  the  absence  of  a  medical 

41 


and  "hospital"  contract  or  agreement  as  hereinafter  provided,  to  the 
employee,  and  the  employee  shall  accept,  an  attending  physi- 
cian, unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Industrial  Board,  and 
in  addition  such  surgical  and  hospital  service  and  supplies  as  may  be 
deemed  necessary  by  said  attending  physician,  or  the  Industrial  Board. 

The  refusal  of  the  employee  to  accept  such  service  wftien  provided 
by  the  employer  shall  bar  said  employee  from  further  compensation 
until  such  refusal  ceases,  and  no  compensation  shall  at  any  time  be 
payable  for  the  period  of  suspension  unless  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Industrial  Board  the  circumstances  justify  ithe  refusal,  in  which  case 
the  Board  may  order  a  change  in  the  medical  or  hospital  service,  and 
may  allow  the  withheld  compensation. 

If  in  an  emergency  on  account  of  the  employer's  failure  to  provide 
the  medical  care  for  the  first  thirty  days,  as  herein  specified,  or  for 
other  good  reason,  a  physician  other  than  that  provided  by  the  employer 
is  called  to  treat  the  injured  employee  during  the  first  thirty  days,  the 
reasonable  cost  of  such  service  shall  be  paid  by  the  employer  subject 
to  the  approval  of  the  Industrial  Board. 

Sec.  26.  The  pecuniary  liability  of  the  employer  for  medical, 
surgical  and  hospital  service  herein  required  shall  be  limited  to  such 
charges  as  prevail  in  the  same  community  for  similar  treatment  of  in- 
jured persons  of  a  like  standard  of  living  when  such  treatment  is  paid 
for  by  the  injured  person,  in  no  case  to  exceed  $100,  and  may  be  abro- 
gated entirely  by  mutual  agreement  between  employers  and  employees 
providing  for  medical  and  "hospital"  benefits  and  accommodations  to  be 
furnished  to  the  employee  which  shall  include  the  service  required  in 
this  bill  and  be  extended  according  to  such  mutual  agreement,  subject  to 
the  following  conditions  and  requirements: 

(a)  .Such,  hospital  contract  or  agreements  must  provide  for  medi- 
cal, hospital,  and  surgical  attendance  for  such  employee  for  sickness 
contracted  during  the  employment,  as  well  as  for  injuries  received  aris- 
ing out  of  and  in  the  course  of  the  employment,  except  venereal  diseases 
and  sickness  or  injury  as  a  result  of  intoxication. 

(b)  No  assessment  of  employees  for  such  hospital  contracts  or 
benefits  shall  exceed  $1  per  month  for  each  employee,  except  in  cases 
where  it  shall  appear  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  board,  after  a  hearing 
had  for  that  purpose,  that  the  actual  cost  of  such  service  exceeds  the 
said  sum  of  $1  per  month,  and  any  such  finding  of  the  board  may  be 
modified  at  any  time  when  justified  by  a  change  of  conditions  or  oth- 
erwise, either  upon  the  board's  own  motion  or  'the  application  of  any 
party  in  interest. 

(c)  No  profit,  directly  or  indirectly,  shall  be  made  by  any  em- 
ployer as  a  result  of  such  hospital  contract  or  assessments.     It  is  the 
purpose  and  intent  of  this  act  to  provide  that  where  hospitals  are  main- 
tained by  employers  such  hospitals  shall  be  no  more  .than  self-supporting 
from   assessment  of  employees,  and   that  where  ihospitals  are  main- 
tained by  other  than  the  employer,  all  sums  due  such  hospital  for  ser- 

42 


vices  rendered,  and  derived  by  assessment  of  employees,  shall  be  paid  in 
full  without  deduction  by  the  employer. 

(d)  Each  and  every  hospital  maintained  wholly  or  in  ipart  by  pay- 
ments from  workmen,  which  furnishes  treatment  and  services  to  em- 
ployees for  sickness  and  injury,  as  provided  in  this  act,  shall  be  under 
the  supervision  of  the  board  as  to  the  services  and  treatment  rendered 
such  employees,  and  shall  from  time  to  time  make  reports  of  such  ser- 
vices,   attendances,    treatments,    receipts,    and    disbursements   as    the 
board  may  require. 

(e)  Neither  an  employer,  an  insurer,  (nor  the  Board  shall  be  lia- 
ble in  any  way  for  an  act  in  connection  with  the  treatment  or  care,  or 
malpractice  in  treatment  or  care,  of  any  sicknes  or  injury  sustained  by 
an  employee  or  the  beneficiary  of  any  hospital  contract,  where  such  act 
or  treatment  or  malpractice  in  treatment  is  caused,  or  alleged  to  have 
been  caused,  by  any  physician,  hospital,  or  attendant  furnished  by  such 
employer,  insurer,  or  the  Board,     in  any  action  for  malpractice  arising 
out  of  the  operations  of  this  act  the  merits  of  such  action  shall  be  in- 
vestigated  by   the    Industrial   Board,   and   the   findings   of   the   Board 
in  relation  thereto  shall  be  filed  with  the  clerk  of  the  court  in  which 
the  action  is  pending,  and  such  findings  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence 
of  the  truth  thereof. 

(f)  In  any  action  to  recover  damages  for  any  act  connected  with 
the  treatment  or  care  or  malpractice  in  treatment  or  care  of  any  sick- 
ness of  or  injury  sustained  by  an  employee  the  question  of  whether  or 
not  due  care  was  given  by  the  defendants  shall  be  a  question  of  law  for 
tha  court. 

Sec.  27.  After  an  injury  and  during  the  period  resulting  in  dis- 
ability, the  employee,  if  so  requested  by  his  employer  or  ordered  by 
the  Industrial  Board,  shall  submit  himself  to  examination,  at  reasonable 
times  and  places,  by  a  duly  qualified  physician  or  surgeon  designated 
and  paid  by  the  employer  or  the  Industrial  Board.  The  employee  shall 
have  the  right  to  have  present  at  any  such  examination  any  duly  quali- 
fied physician  or  surgeon  provided  and  paid  by  him.  No  fact  communi- 
cated to,  or  otherwise  learned  by  any  iphysician  or  surgeon  who  may 
have  attended  or  examined  the  employee,  or  who  may  have  been  pres- 
ent at  any  examination,  shall  be  privileged,  either  in  the  hearings  pro- 
vided for  in  this  act,  or  in  any  action  at  law  brought  to  recover  damages 
against  any  employer  who  may  ihave  accepted  the  compensation  pro- 
visions of  this  act.  If  the  employee  refuses  to  submit  himself  to  or  in 
any  way  obstructs  such  examination,  his  right  to  compensation  and  his 
right  to  take  or  prosecute  any  (proceeding  under  this  act  shall  be  sus- 
pended until  such  refusal  or  obstruction  ceases,  and  no  compensation 
shall  at  any  time  be  payable  for  the  period  of  suspension  unless  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Industrial  Board  the  circumstances  justify  the  refusal  or 
obstruction. 

The  employer,  or  the  Industrial  Board,  shall  have  the  right  in  any 
case  of  death  to  require  an  autopsy  at  the  expense  of  the  party  re- 
quiring the  same. 

43 


Sec.  28.  No  compensation  shall  be  allowed  for  the  firat  fourteen 
calendar  days  of  disability  resulting  from  an  injury  except  the  bene- 
fits provided  for  in  Section  25;  but  if  disability  extends  beyond  that 
period  compensation  shall  commence  with  the  fifteenth  day  after  the 
injury. 

Sec.  29.  Where  the  injury  causes  (total  disability  for  work,  there 
shall  be  paid  to  the  injured  employee  during  such  disability,  but  not 
including  the  first  two  weeks  thereof,  a  weekly  compensation  equal  to 
fifty  per  cent  of  his  average  weekly  wages  for  a  period  of  not  to  ex- 
ceed three  hundred  thirty-ithreei  and  one-third  weeks.  In  case  of  the 
following  injuries  the  disability  shall  be  deemed  total  and  permanent, 
to-wit: 

(1)  The  total  and  permanent  loss  of  sight  in  both  eyes. 

(2)  The  loss  of  both  feet  at  or  above  the  ankle. 

(3)  The  loss  of  both  hands  at  or  above  the  wrist. 

(4)  A  similar  loss  of  one  hand  and  one  foot. 

(5)  An  injury  to  the  spine  resulting  in  permanent  and  complete 
paralysis  of  both  arms  or  both  legs  or  of  one  arm  and  one  leg. 

(6)  An  injury  to  the  skull  resulting  in  incurable  insanity  or  im- 
becility. 

The  above  enumeration  is  not  to  be  taken  as  exclusive,  but  in  all 
other  cases  the  burden  of  proof  shall  be  on  the  claimant  to  prove  that 
his  injuries  have  resulted  in  permanent  total  disability. 

Where  there  has  been  a  previous  disability,  as  the  loss  of  one  eye, 
one  hand,  one  foot,  or  any  other  previous  permanent  disability,  the  per- 
centage of  disability  for  a  subsequent  injury  shall  (be  determined  by 
computing  the  percentage  of  the  entire  disability  and  deducting  there- 
from the  percentage  of  the  previous  disability  as  it  existed  at  the  time 
of  the  subsequent  injury. 

Sec.  30.  Where  the  injury  causes  partial  disability  for  work,  there 
shall  be  paid  to  the  injured  employee  during  such  disability  but  not 
including  the  first  two  weeks  thereof,  a  weekly  compensation  equal  to 
one-half  of  the  difference  between  his  "average  weekly  wages"  and  the 
weekly  wages  at  which  he  isi  actually  employed  after  the  injury,  for  a 
period  not  to  exceed  two  hundred  and  fifty  weeks. 

In  case  the  partial  disability  begins  after  a  period  of  total  dis- 
ability, the  latter  period  shall  be  deducted  from  the  maximum  period 
allowed  for  partial  disability. 

Sec.  31.  For  injuries  in  the  following  schedule  the  employee  shall 
receive  in  lieu  of  all  other  compensation  a  weekly  compensation  equal 
to  fifty  per  cent  of  his  average  weekly  wages  for  the  periods  stated 
against  such  injuries  respectively,  to-wit: 

(a)  For  the  loss  by  separation  of  not  more  than  one  phalange 
of  a  thumb  or  not  more  than  two  phalanges  of  a  finger,  15  weeks; 

(b)  For  the  loss  by  separation  of  more  than  two  phalange®  of  a 
finger  or  of  a  whole  finger  or  a  toe,  30  weeks; 

(c)  For  the  loss  by  separation  of  more  than  one  phalange  of  a 
thumb  or  of  a  whole  thumb,  60  weeks; 

44 


(d)  For  the  permanent  and  irrecoverable  loss  of  the  sight  of  one 
eye  or  its  reduction  to  one-tenth  of  normal  vision  with  glasses,  100 
weeks; 

(e)  For  the  loss  by  separation  of  one  foot  at  or  above  the  ankle 
joint,  125  weeks; 

(f)  For  the  loss  by  separation!  of  one  hand  at  or  above  the  wrist 
joint,  150  weeks; 

(g)  For  the  loss  by  separation  of  one  leg  at  or  above  the  knee 
joint,  175  weeks. 

(h)  For  the  loss  by  separation  of  one  arm  at  or  above  the  elbow 
joint,  200  weeks; 

(i)     For  the  permanent  and  complete  loss  of  hearing,  125  weeks. 

(j)  For  hernia  not  to  exceed  26  weeks,  but  a  workman  in  order 
to  be  entitled  to  compensation  for  hernia  must  clearly  prove: 
(1)  That  the  hernia  is  of  recent  origin;  (2)  that  its  appear- 
ance was  ^accompanied  by  pain,  (3)  that  it  was  immediately 
preceded  by  some  accidental  strain  suffered  in  the  course  of  the  em 
ployment,  and  (4)  that  it  did  not  exist  prior  to  the  date  of  the  alleged 
injury.  If  a  workman,  after  establishing  his  right  to  compensation  fof 
hernia  as  above  provided,  elects  to  be  operated  upon,  a  special  operating 
fee  of  not  to  exceed  fifty  dollars  shall  be  paid  by  the  employer 
or  the  insurer,  as  the  case  may  be.  In  case  such  workman  elects 
not  to  be  operated  upon,  and  the  hernia  becomes  strangulated  in  the 
future,  the  results  from  such  strangulation  shall  not  be  compensated. 

The  complete  paralysis  of  an  arm,  hand,  foot  or  leg  shall  be  con- 
sidered the  loss  of  such  member.  The  complete  paralysis  of  both  arms, 
both  hands,  both  feet,  or  both  legs,  or  any  two  of  them,  shall  be  con- 
sidered the  loss  of  such  members. 

Facial  disfigurement:  For  permanent  disfigurement  about  the  head 
and  face,  the  commission  may  allow  such  sum  for  compensation  thereof 
as  it  may  deem  just,  not  exceeding  fifty  per  cent  of  weekly  wages,  but 
not  exceeding  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars  ($1,000). 

In  all  cases  of  permanent  partial  disability,  not  otherwise  specified 
in  the  foregoing  schedule,  the  disability  shall  be  determined  according 
to  the  percentage  thereof,  taking  into  account,  among  other  things,  any 
previous  disability,  the  occupation  of  the  injured  employee,  the  nature 
of  the  physical  injury  or  disfigurement,  and  the  age  of  the  employee  at 
the  time  of  the  injury ;  and  the  compensation  paid  therefor  shall  be  the 
percentage  of  the  disability  caused  by  the  injury  times  fifty  per  cent  of 
the  average  weekly  wage  (but  not  more  than  twelve  dollars  a  week) 
for  not  exceeding  two  hundred  weeks,  during  the  life  of  the  injured 
employee. 

Sec.  32.  If  an  injured  employee  refuses  employment  suitable  to  his 
capacity  procured  for  him,  he  shall  not  be  entitled  to  any  compensation 
at  any  time  during  the  continuance  of  such  refusal  unless  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Industrial  Board  such  refusal  was  justifiable. 

Sec.  33.  If  an  employee  has  sustained  a  permanent  injury  in  an- 
other employment  than  that  in  which  he  received  a  subsequent  per- 

45 


manent  injury  by  accident,  such  as  is  specified  in  Section  31,  he  shall  be 
entitled  to  compensation  for  the  subsequent  injury  in  the  same  amount 
as  if  the  previous  injury  had  not  occurred,  provided^owever,  that  only 
the  added  injury  resulting  exclusively  from  the  accident  to  be  compen- 
sated for,  shall  be  considered  in  measuring  the  amount  of  com- 
pensation. 

Sec.  34.  If  an  employee  receives  an  injury  for  which  compensation 
is  payable  while  he  is  still  receiving  or  entitled  to  compensation  for  a 
previous  injury  in  the  same  employment,  he  shall  not  at  the  same  time 
be  entitled  to  compensation  for  both  injuries  unless  it  be  for  a  perma- 
nent injury,  such  as  is  specified  in  Section  31;  but  he  shall  be  entitled  to 
compensation  for  that  injury  and  from  the  time  of  that  injury  which 
will  cover  the  longest  period  and  the  largest  amount  payable  under  this 
act. 

Sec.  35.  If  an  employee  receives  a  permanent  injury  such  as  is  speci- 
fied in  Section  31,  after  having  sustained  another  permanent  injury  in 
the  same  employment,  he  shall  be  entitled  to  compensation  for  both  in- 
juries, but  the  total  compensation  shall  be  paid  by  extending  the  period 
and  not  by  increasing  the  amount  of  weekly  compensation. 

When  the  previous  and  subsequent  permanent  injuries  result  in 
total  permanent  disability,  compensation  shall  be  payable  for  permanent 
total  disability,  but  payments  made  for  the  previous  injury  shall  be  de- 
ducted from  the  total  payment  of  compensation  due. 

Sec.  36.  When  an  employee  receives  or  is  entitled  to  compensation 
under  this  act  for  an  injury  and  dies  from  any  other  cause  than  the  in- 
jury for  which  he  was  entitled  to  compensation,  payment  of  the  unpaid 
balance  of  compensation  shall  be  made  to  his  next  of  kin  dependent 
upon  him  for  support. 

Sec.  37.  Where  death  results  from  the  injury  within  two  hundred 
and  fifty  weeks,  there  shall  be  paid  in  addition  to  burial  expenses  not  to 
exceed  one  hundred  dollars,  a  weekly  compensation  equal  to  fifty  per  cent 
of  the  deceased's  average  weekly  wages  during  such  remaining  part  of 
two  hundred  and  fifty  weeks  as  compensation  shall  not  have  been  paid 
to  the  deceased  for  total  or  partial  disability,  to  all  dependents  of  the  em- 
ployee wholly  dependent  upon  his  earnings  for  support  at  the  time  of  the 
injury.  If  the  employee  leaves  dependents  only  partially  dependent  upon 
his  earnings  for  support  at  the  time  of  the  injury,  the  weekly  compen- 
sation to  those  dependents  shall,  in  addition  to  burial  expenses,  not  to 
exceed  one  hundred  dollars,  be  in  the  same  proportion  to  the  weekly 
compensation  for  persons  wholly  dependent  as  the  amount!  contributed 
by  the  deceased  employee  to  such  partial  dependents  bears  to  his  annual 
earnings  at  the  time  of  the  injury,  provided  that  such  dependents  ac- 
cepting payment  under  this  act  shall  be  deemed  to  have  accepted,  ex- 
clusively, the  provisions  and  terms  thereof. 

Sec.  38.  The  following  persons  shall  be  conclusively  presumed  to 
be  wholly  dependent  for  support  upon  a  deceased  employee: 

(a)  A  wife  upon  a  husband  with  whom  she  lives  at  the  time  of 
his  injury. 

46 


(b)  A  husband  upon  a  wife  with  whom  he  lives  at  the  time  of 
her  injury  if  he  is  then  incapable  of  self-support  and  actually  dependent 
upon  her. 

(c)  A  boy  under  the  age  of  17,  or  a  girl  under  the  age  of  18  upon 
the  parent  with  whom  he  or  she  is  living  at  the  time  of  the  injury  of 
such  parent,  there  being  no  surviving  dependent  parent.     If  a  child  is 
over  the  ages  specified  above,  but  physically  or  mentally  incapacitated 
from  earning,  he  or  she  shall  be  presumed  to  be  totally  dependent  if 
there  is  no  surviving  dependent  parent. 

As  used  in  this  section,  the  term  "boy,"  "girl"  or  "child"  shall  in- 
clude step-children,  legally  adopted  children,  posthumous  children,  ac- 
knowledged illegitimate  children,  but  shall  not  include  married  children 
unless  actually  dependent;  the  term  "parent"  shall  include  step-parents 
and  parents  by  adoption. 

In  all  other  cases,  questions  of  dependency,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  fact,  as  the  fact  may  be  at 
the  time  of  the  injury;  and  in  such  other  cases  if  there  is  more  than 
one  person  wholly  dependent,  the  death  benefit  shall  be  divided  among 
them;  and  persons  partly  dependent,  if  any,  shall  receive  no  part  there- 
of, unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  Board;  if  there  is  no  one  wholly  de- 
pendent and  more  than  one  person  partly  dependent,  the  death  benefit 
shall  be  divided  among  them  according  to  the  relative  extent  of  their 
dependency. 

The  dependency  shall  not  be  construed  to  extend  to  others  than 
the  family  of  such  deceased  and  who  have  a  legal  right  under  the  laws 
of  this  State  to  support  or  financial  aid  from  such  deceased;  nor  shall 
such  right  to  compensation  ibe  deemed  a  vested  right. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  act,  the  dependence  of  a  widow  or  widower 
of  a  deceased  employee,  and  dependent  children  living  with  said  widow 
or  widower,  shall  terminate  with  remarriage,  and  the  amount  received 
by  her  shall  be  divided  among  other  dependents  in  the  proportion  in 
which  they  are  receiving  compensation,  and  in  the  event  of  the  separa- 
tion of  the  wife  from  her  second  or  subsequent  husband  and  her  obtain- 
ing a  divorce  upon  her  own  application,  then  she  shall  receive  the  same 
compensation  to  which  she  would  have  been  entitled  had  she  not  re- 
married, less  any  alimony  she  may  toe  receiving,  but  the  time  from  the 
date  of  the  remarriage  to  the  date  of  the  divorce  shall  be  deducted  from 
the  time  compensation  runs,  and  the  dependence  of  a  child,  except  a 
child  physically  or  mentally  incapacitated  from  earning,  shall  terminate 
with  the  attainment  of  18  years  of  age  for  girls  and  17  years  of  age 
for  boys. 

Sec.  39.  If  the  deceased  employee  leaves  no  dependants  the  em- 
ployer shall  pay  the  burial  expense  of  the  deceased,  not  to  exceed  one 
hundred  dollars,  such  burial  to  be  subject  to  the  supervision  of  the  In- 
dustrial Board. 

Sec.  40.  In  computing  compensation  under  the  foregoing  sections, 
the  average  weekly  wages  of  an  employee  shall  be  considered  not  to  be 
more  than  twenty-four  dollars,  or  less  than  ten  dollars.  And  pro- 

47 


vided  further,  That  the  total  compensation  payable  under  this  act  shall 
in  no  case  exceed  four  thousand  dollars  ($4,000). 

Sec.  41.  Any  payments  made  by  the  employer  <to  the  injured  em- 
ployee during  the  period  of  his  disability^  or  to  his  dependents,  which 
by  the  terms  of  this  act  were  not  due  and  payable  when  made,  may, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Industrial  Board,  be  deducted  from  the 
amount  paid  as  compensation:  Provided,  That  in  case  of  disability  such 
deduction  shall  be  made  by  shortening  the  period  during  which  com- 
pensation must  be  paid  and  not  by  reducing  the  amount  of  weekly  pay- 
ments unless  otherwise  hereinafter  specified. 

Sec.  42.  The  Industrial  Board  upon  the  application  of  either  party, 
may,  in  its  discretion,  having  regard  to  the  welfare  of  the  employee  and 
the  convenience  of  the  employer,  authorize  compensation  to  be  paid 
monthly  or  quarterly  instead  of  weekly. 

Sec.  43.  Whenever  any  weekly  payment  has  been  continued  for  not 
less  than  thirteen  weeks,  the  liability  therefor  may,  in  unusual  cases, 
where  the  parties  agree  and  the  Industrial  Board  deems  it  to  be  for 
their  best  interests,  be  redeemed  by  the  payment,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
by  the  employer,  of  a  lump  or  gross  sum,  which  shall  be  fixed  by  the 
Board,  but  in  no  case  to  exceed  the  commutable  value  of  the  future 
installments  which  may  be  due  under  this  Act,  considering  interest  at 
tin  rate  of  6  per  cent  per  annum. 

The  Board  may,  however,  in  its  discretion,  at  any  time,  in  the  case 
of  a  minor  who  nas  received  permanently  disabling  injuries,  either  par- 
tial or  total,  provide  that  he  be  compensated  in  whole  or  in  part  by 
the  payment  of  a  lump  or  gross  sum,  the  amount  of  which  shall  be 
fixed  by  the  Board,  but  in  no  case  to  exceed  the  commutable  value  of 
th3  future  installments  which  may  be  due  under  this  Act,  considering 
interest  at  the  rate  of  6  per  cent  per  annum. 

Sec.  44.  Whenever  the  Industrial  Board  deems  it  expedient,  any 
lump  sum  under  the  fore-going  section  shall  be  paid  by  the  employer  to 
some  suitable  person  or  corporation  appointed  by  the  Industrial  Board, 
as  trustee,  to  administer  the  same  for  the  benefit  of  the  person  entitled 
thereto,  in  the  manner  provided  by  the  Board.  The  receipt  of  such  trus- 
tee for  the  amount  as  paid  shall  discharge  the  employer  or  anyone  else 
who  is  liable  therefor. 

Sec.  45.  Upon  its  own  motion  or  upon  the  application  of  any  party 
in  interest  on  the  ground  of  a  change  in  condition,  the  Industrial  Board 
may  at  any  time  review  any  award  and  on  such  review  may  make  an 
award  ending,  diminishing  or  increasing  the  compensation  previously 
awarded,  subject  to  the  maximum  or  minimum  provided  in  this  act,  and 
shall  immediately  send  to  the  parties  a  copy  of  the  award.  No  such  re- 
view shall  affect  such  award  as  regards  any  moneys  paid. 

Sec.  46.  Whenever  payment  of  compensation  is  made  to  a  widow 
or  widower  for  her  or  his  use,  and  the  use  of  a  child  or  children,  the 
written  receipt  thereof  by  such  widow  or  widower  shall  acquit  the  em- 
ployer. 

Whenever   payment   is   made   to   any   person   17   years   of  age   or 

48 


over,  the  written  receipt  of  such  person  shall  acquit  the  employer. 

Whenever  payment  is  made  to  a  minor  under  the  age  of  17 
years,  or  to  a  dependent  child  over  the  age  of  17,  the  same  shall 
be  made  to  some  suitable  person  or  corporation  appointed  by  the  Indus- 
trial Board  as  trustee  or  guardian,  and  the  receipt  of  such  trustee  or 
guardian  shall  acquit  the  employer;  provided,  however,  that  the  In- 
dustrial Board  may  review  the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  the 
payment  of  any  money  and  the  taking  of  any  receipt  as  provided  in 
this  section,  and  may  set  the  same  aside  either  for  fraud  or  undue  in- 
fluence. 

Sec.  47.  If  an  injured  employee  is  mentally  incompetent  or  is 
under  17  years  of  age  at  the  time  when  any  right  or  privilege  ac- 
crues to  him  under  this  act,  his  guardian  or  trustee  may  in  his  behalf 
claim  and  exercise  such  right  or  privilege. 

Sec.  48.  No  limitation  of  time  provided  in  this  act  shall  run  as 
against  any  person  who  is  mentally  incompetent  or  a  minor  dependent, 
so  long  as  he  has  no  guardian  or  trustee. 

Sec.  49.  Whenever  any  employee  for  whose  injury  or  death  com- 
pensation is  payable  under  this  act  shall  at  the  time  of  the  injury  be 
in  tihe  joint  service  of  two  or  more  employers  subject  to  this  act,  such 
employers  shall  contribute  to  the  payment  of  such  compensation  in  pro- 
portion to" their  wage  liability  to  such  employees;  Provided,  'however, 
That  nothing  in  this  section  shall  prevent  any  reasonable  arrangement 
between  such  employers  for  a  different  distribution  as  between  them- 
selves of  the  ultimate  burden  of  compensation. 


PART  III. 

ADMINISTRATION. 

Sec.  50.  There  is  hereby  created  a  Board  wthich  shall  be  known  as 
the  Industrial  Board  of  Utah,  whose  term  of  office  shall  be  four  years, 
except  as  otherwise  provided  in  this  section,  which  shall  consist  of 
three  members  appointed  by  the  Governor.  Of  the  Board  as  first  con- 
stituted, one  member  shall  be  appointed  for  two  years,  who  shall  be 
Chairman  during  his  term;  one  member  shall  be  appointed  for  three 
years,  who  shall  be  Chairman  during  the  third  year;  and  one  member 
shall  be  appointed  for  four  years,  who  shall  be  Chairman  during  the 
fourth  year.  Thereafter,  the  senior  member  in  length  of  service  on 
the  Board  in  his  current  term  in  any  given  year  shall  be  Chairman 
during  that  year. 

Vacancies  on  the  board  shall  be  filled  by  appointment  by  the  Gov- 
ernor for  the  remainder  of  the  unexpired  term,  but  no  vacancy  shall  im- 
pair the  rights  of  the  remaining  members  to  exercise  all  the  powers  of 
the  Board,  nor  shall  relieve  such  members  from  discharging  all  the 
duties  of  the  Board  during  such  vacancy.  In  the  event  of  a  vacancy, 
the  appointee  for  the  unexpired  term  shall  not  succeed  his  predecessor 
in  the  chairmanship  of  the  Board;  such  other  member  as  would,  but  for 

49 


the  vacancy,  have  been  chairman  shall  at  once  succeed  to  the  unexpired 
chairmanship,  when  a  vacancy  occurs  therein,  in  addition  to  the  year's 
chairmanship  to  which  he  would  otherwise  have  been  entitled. 

No  person  shall  be  eligible  to  appointment  as  a  member  of  the 
Board  unless  he  shall  be  at  least  30  years  of  age,  a  resident  of  Utah 
not  less  than  three  years  consecutively  next  preceding  his  appointment, 
unbiased,  of  good  moral  character,  and  of  a  previous  experience  and 
training  to  qualify  him  to  efficiently  and  justly  discharge  the  duties  of 
his  office.  One  member,  at  least,  shall  be  well  versed  in  the  practice 
and  procedure  of  the  law.  No  more  than  two  of  its  members  shall 
belong  to  the  same  political  party. 

The  majority  of  the  Board  shall  constitute  a  quorum. 

Sec.  51.  The  salary  of  each  member  of  the  Board  shall  be  four 
thousand  dollars  per  year. 

The  Board  may  appoint  a  secretary  and  may  also  employ  such 
clerical  and  other  assistants  as  it  may  deem  necessary  and  fix  the  com- 
pensation of  all  persons  so  employed,  and  may  remove  them. 

The  members  of  the  Board  and  its  assistants  shall  be  entitled  to 
receive  from  the  State  their  actual  and  necessary  expenses'  while  trav- 
eling on  the  business  of  the  Board,  but  such  expenses  shall  be  sworn 
to  by  the  person  who  incurred  the  same  and  shall  be  approved  by  a 
majority  of  the  Board  before  payment  is  made. 

All  salaries  and  expenses  of  the  Board  shall  be  audited  and  paid 
out  of  the  State  Treasury  in  the  manner  prescribed  for  similar  expense* 
in  other  departments  or  branches  of  the  State  service. 

Sec.  52.  The  Board,  and  each  Commissioner  thereof,  shall,  for  the 
purpose  of  this  act,  have  power  to  summon  and  examine  under  oath,  wit- 
nesses, and  may  direct  the  production  of  and  examination  of  or  cause 
to  be  produced  and  examined  such  books,  records,  vouchers,  mem- 
oranda, documents,  letters,  contracts  or  other  papers  in  relation  to  any 
matter  at  issue  as  may  be  found  proper,  and  shall  have  the  same  powers 
in  reference  thereto  as  Judges  of  the  District  Court.  They  shall  have 
power  to  certify  to  all  official  acts  and  all  powers  necessary  to  enable 
them  to  perform  the  duties  imposed  upon  them  by  the  provisions  of  this 
Act. 

They  shall  have  power  to  take  depositions  or  authorize  them  to  be 
taken  when  necessary,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  District  Court. 

Sec.  53.  The  District  or  Supreme  Court,  on  application  of  the 
Board,  through  the  Attorney  General  or  otherwise,  may  enforce  by  ap- 
propriate decree  or  process,  any  provision  of  this  Act  or  any  order  of 
the  Board. 

The  Attorney  Ccneral  or  any  District  Attorney  of  the  State  shall 
render  such  assistance  to  the  Board  as  it  may  request. 

Sec.  54.  The  Board  shall  be  provided  with  adequate  offices  in  the 
Capitol  or  some  other  suitable  building  in  the  city  of  Salt  Lake,  in 
which  the  records  shall  be  kept  and  its  official  business  be  transacted 
during  regular  business  hours;  it  shall  also  be  provided  with  necessary 

50 


office  furniture,  stationery  and  other  supplies. 

The  Board  or  any  member  thereof  may  hold  sessions  at  any  place 
within  the  State  as  may  be  deemed  necessary. 

Sec.  55.  The  Board  may  make  rules  not  inconsistent  with  this  act 
for  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act.  Processes  and  procedure 
under  this  act  s'hall  be  as  summary  and  simple  as  reasonably  may  be. 
The  County  Sheriff  shall  serve  all  suibpoenas  of  the  Board  or  any 
member  thereof,  and  shall  receive  the  same  fees  as  provided  by 
law  for  like  service  in  civil  actions;  each  witness  who  appears  in  obe- 
dience to  such  subpoena  shall  receive  for  attendance  the  fees  and  mile- 
age for  witnesses  in  civil  cases  in  the  courts.  In  addition  thereto  the 
District  or  Supreme  Court  shall,  on  application  of  the  Board  or  any 
member  thereof,  enforce  by  proper  proceedings  the  attendance  and  tes- 
timony of  witnesses  and  the  production  and  examination  of  books, 
papers  and  records  and  shall,  if  so  requested,  enforce  its  orders  and 
decrees. 

Sec.  56.  The  Board  shall  prepare  and  cause  to  be  printed,  and  upon 
request  furnish  free  of  charge  to  any  employer  or  employee,  such  blank 
forms  and  literature  as  it  shall  deem  requisite  to  facilitate  or  promote 
the  efficient  administration  of  this  act. 

The  Board  shall  tabulate  the  accident  reports  received  from  em- 
ployers in  accordance  with  Section  67,  and  shall  publish  the  same  in. 
the  annual  report  of  the  Board  and  as  often  as  it  may  deem  advisable, 
in  such  detailed  or  aggregate  form  as  it  may  deem  best.  The  name  of 
the  employer  or  employee  shall  not  appear  in  such  publications  and  the 
employers'  reports  themselves  shall  be  private  records  of  the  Board  and 
shall  not  be  open  for  public  inspection  except  for  the  inspection  of  the 
parties  directly  involved.  These  reports  shall  not  be  used  as  evidence 
against  any  employer  in  any  suit  at  law  'brought  by  any  employee  for 
the  recovery  of  damages. 

Sec.  57.  If  after  fourteen  days  from  the  date  of  the  injury,  or  at 
any  time  in  case  of  death,  the  employer  and  the  injured  employee  or 
his  dependents  reach  an  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation  under 
this  act,  a  memorandum  of  the  agreement  in  the  form  prescribed  by  the 
Industrial  Board  shall  be  filed  with  the  Board;  otherwise  such  agree- 
ment shall  be  voidable  by  the  employee  or  his  dependents. 

If  approved  by  the  Board,  thereupon  the  memorandum  shall  for 
all  purposes  be  enforceable  by  the  court  decree  as  hereinafter  specified. 
Such  agreement  shall  be  approved  by  said  Board  only  when  the!  terms 
conform  to  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

Sec.  58.  If  the  employer  and  the  injured  employee  or  his  depen- 
dents fail  to  reach  an  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation  under  this 
act,  or  if  they  have  reached  such  an  agreement  which  has  been  signed 
and  filed  with  the  Board  and  compensation  has  been  paid  or  is)  due  in 
accordance  therewith,  and  the  parties  thereto  then  disagree  as  to  the 
continuance  of  any  weekly  payment  under  such  agreement,  either  party 
may  make  an  application  to  the  Industrial  Board  for  a  hearing  in  regard 
to  the  matters  at  issue  and  for  a  ruling  thereon^ 

51 


Immediately  after  such  application  has  been  received  the  Board 
shall  set  the  date  for  a  hearing,  which  shall  be  held  as  soon  as  practica- 
ble, and  shall  notify  the  parties  at  issue  of  the  time  and  place  of  such 
hearing.  The  hearing  shall  be  held  at  such  place  as  the  Board  shall 
designate. 

Sec.  59.  The  Board  or  any  of  its  members  shall  hear  the  parties 
at  issue  and  their  representatives  and  witnesses  and  shall  determine  the 
dispute  in  a  summary  manner.  The  award,  together  with  a  statement 
of  the  findings  of  fact,  rulings  of  law  and  any  other  matters  pertinent 
to  the  question  at  issue  shall  be  filed  with  the  record  of  proceedings, 
and  a  icopy  of  the  award  shall  immediately  be  sent  to  the  parties  in 
dispute. 

Sec.  60.  If  an  application  for  review  is  made  to  the  Board  within 
seven  days  from  the  date  of  the  award,  the  full  Board,  if  the  first  hear- 
ing was  not  held  before  the  full  Board,  shall  review  the  evidence,  or,  if 
deemed  advisable,  as  soon  as  practicable  hear  the  parties  at  issue, 
their  representatives  and  witnesses,  and  shall  make  an  award  and  file 
same  in  like  manner  as  specified  in  the  foregoing  section. 

Sec.  61.  An  award  of  the  (Board,  as  provided  in  Section  59,  if  not 
reviewed  in  due  time,  or  an  award  of  the  Board  upon  such  review  as 
provided  in  Section  60,  shall  be  conclusive  and  'binding  as  to  all  ques- 
tions of  fact,  but  either  party  to  the  dispute  may  within  thirty  days 
from  the  date  of  the  award  appeal  to  the  Supreme  court  for  errors  of 
law  under  the  same  terms  and  conditions  as  govern  appeals  in  ordinary 
civil  actions.  The  Board,  of  its  own  motion,  may  certify  questions  of 
law  to  said  Supreme  court  for  its  decision  and  determination. 

Sec.  62.  Any  party  in  interest  may  file  in  the  District  court  in  the 
county  in  which  the  injury  occurred,  or  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  state 
a  certified  copy  of  a  memorandum  of  agreement  approved  by  the  Board 
or  of  an  order  or  decision  of  the  Board,  or  of  an  award  of  the  Board  un- 
appealed  from,  or  of  an  award  of  the  Board  rendered  upon  an  appeal, 
whereupon  said  court  shall  render  judgment  in  accordance  therewith  and 
notify  the  parties.  Such  judgment  shall  have  the  same  effect  and  all  pro- 
ceedings in  relation  thereto  shall  thereafter  be  the  same  as  though  said 
judgment  had  been  rendered  in  a  suit  duly  iheard  and  determined  by  said 
court. 

Any  such  judgment  of  said  District  Court  unappealed  from  or  af- 
firmed on  appeal  by  the  Supreme  Court  or  modified  in  obedience  to  the 
mandate  of  the  Supreme  Court,  shall  be  modified  to  conform  to  any  de- 
cision of  the  Industrial  Board,  ending,  diminishing  or  increasing  any 
weekly  payment  under  >the  provisions  of  Section  45  of  this  Act  upon  the 
presentation  to  it  of  a  certified  copy  of  such  decision. 

Sec.  63.  If  the  Industrial  Board  or  any  court  before  whom  any  pro- 
ceedings are  brought  under  this  act  shall  determine  that  such  pro- 
ceedings have  been  brought,  prosecuted  or  defended  without  reasonable 
ground,  it  may  assess  the  whole  cost  of  the  proceedings  upon  the  party 
wfao  has  so  brought,  prosecuted  or  defended  them. 

52 


Sec.  64.  The  Board  or  any  member  thereof  may,  upon  the  appli- 
cation of  either  party  or  upon  its  own  motion,  appoint  a  disinterested 
and  duly  qualified  physician  or  surgeon  to  make  any  necessary  medical 
examination  of  the  employee  and  to  testify  in  respect  thereto.  Said 
physician  or  surgeon  shall  be  allowed  traveling  expenses  and  a  reason- 
able fee,  to  be  fixed  by  the  Board,  not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each 
examination  and  report,  but  the  Board  may  allow  additional  reasonable 
amounts  in  extraordinary  cases. 

The  fees  and  expenses  of  such  physician  or  surgeon  shall  be  paid 
by  the  State. 

Sec.  65.  Fees  of  attorneys  and  physicians  and  charges  of  hospitals 
for  services  under  this  act  shall  be  subject  to  the  approval  of  the 
Board. 

Sec.  66.  All  questions  arising  under  this  act,  if  not  settled  by  agree- 
ment of  the  parties  interested  therein  with  the  approval  of  the  Board, 
shall  be  determined  by  the  Board  except  as  otherwise  herein  provided 
for. 

Sec.  67.  Every  employer  shall  hereafter  keep  a  record  of  all 
injuries,  fatal  or  otherwise,  received  by  his  emploj7ees  in  the  course  of 
their  employment.  Within  one  week  after  the  occurrence  and  knowl- 
edge thereof,  as  provided  in  Section  2,  of  an  injury  to  an  employee 
causing  his  absence  from  work  for  more  than  two  days,  a  report  thereof 
shall  be  made  in  writing  and  mailed  to  the  Board  on  blanks  to  be  pro- 
cured from  the  Board  for  the  purpose. 

Upon  the  termination  of  the  disability  of  the  injured  employee,  or 
if  the  disability  extends  beyond  a  period  of  60  days,  then  also  at  the 
expiration  of  such  period  the  employer  shall  make  a  supplementary  re- 
port to  the  Board  on  blanks  to  be  procured  from  the  Board  for  the 
purpose. 

The  said  reports  shall  contain  the  name,  nature  and  location  of  the 
business  of  the  employer,  and  name,  age,  sex,  wages  and  occupation  of 
the  injured  employee,  and  shall  state  the  date  and  hour  of  the  accident 
causing  the  injury,  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  injury  and  such  other 
information  as  may  be  required  by  the  Board. 

Any  employer  who  refuses  or  wilfully  neglects  to  make  the  report 
required  'by  this  section  shall  be  liable  for  a  penalty  of  not  more  than 
twenty-five  dollars  for  each  refusal  or  neglect,  to  be  recoverable  in  any 
court  of  competent  jurisdiction  in  a  suit  by  the  Beard. 

Members  of  the  "Industrial  Board"  shall  be  considered  as 
officers,  and  shall  take  the  oath  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  Utah,  and  shall  each  give  bond  in  the  sum  of  $10,000  of  a 
surety  company  authorized  to  do  business  in  the  State,  for  the  faith- 
ful performance  of  their  duties,  which  bonds  shall  be  approved  by  the 
Governor  and  kept  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State.  The 
premium  upon  said  bonds  shall  be  paid  by  the  Stafe. 

The  Industrial  Board   shall  be  provided  with  an  appropriate  seal. 


53 


PART  IV. 

INSURANCE. 

Sec.  68.  Every  employer  under  this  Act  s'hall  either  insure  and  keep 
insured  his  liability  hereunder  in  some  corporation,  association  or  or- 
ganization authorized  to  transact  the  business  of  workmen's  compensa- 
tion insurance  in  this  State,  or  shall  furnish  to  the  Industrial  Board 
satisfactory  proof  of  his  financial  ability  to  pay  direct  the  compensation 
in  the  amount  and  manner  and  when  due  as  provided  for  in  this  act.  In 
the  latter  case  the  Board  may  in  its  discretion  require  the  deposit  of 
an  acceptable  security,  indemnity  or  bond  to  secure  the  payment  of 
compensation  liabilities  as  they  are  incurred. 

Sec.  69.  Every  employer  accepting  the  compensation  provisions  of 
this  act  shall  within  thirty  days  after  this  act  takes  effect  file  with  the 
Board  in  form  prescribed  by  it,  and  thereafter  annually  or  as  often  as 
may  be  necessary,  evidence  of  his  compliance  with  the  provisions  of 
Section  68  and  all  others  relating  thereto. 

If  such  employer  refuses  or  neglects  to  comply  with  these  provisions 
he  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  ten  cents  for  each  employee  at  the  time 
of  the  insurance  becoming  due,,  but  not  less  than  one  dollar  nor  more 
than  fifty  dollars  for  each  day  of  such  refusal  or  neglect  and  until  the 
same  ceases,  and  he  shall  be  liable  during  continuance  of  such  refusal 
or  neglect  to  an  employee  either  for  compensation  under  this  act  or 
at  law  in  the  same  manner  as  provided  for  in  Section  10. 

Sec.  70.  Whenever  an  employer  has  complied  with  the  provisions 
of  Section  68,  relating  to  self  insurance,  the  Industrial  Board  shall  issue 
to  such  employer  a  certificate  which  shall  remain  in  force  for  a  period 
fixed  by  the  Board,  but  the  Board  may  upon  at  least  sixty  days'  notice 
and  a  hearing  to  the  employer  revoke  the  certificate  upon  satisfactory 
evidence  for  such  revocation  having  been  presented.  After  a  reasonable 
time  from  such  revocation  the  Board  may  grant  a  new  certificate  to  the 
employer  upon  his  petition. 

Sec.  71.  For  the  purpose  of  complying  with  the  provisions  of  Sec- 
tion 68,  groups  of  employers  operating  in  the  State  of  Utah,  to  form 
Mutual  Insurance  Associations,  subject  to  such  reasonable  conditions 
and  restrictions  as  may  be  fixed  -by  the  Industrial  Board,  are  hereby 
authorized;  provided,  however,  that  such  insurance  carriers  shall  have 
a  financial  responsibility  at  least  equal  to  that  required  by  the  present 
insurance  laws  with  regard  to  Mutual  Insurance  Associations  or  Com- 
panies and  until  otherwise  provided  the  requirements  of  the  present  in- 
surance code  of  this  State  shall  apply  to  all  such  Mutual  Insurance  car- 
riers, operating  under  this  law  and  membership  in  such  mutual  insur- 
ance associations,  so  approved,  together  with  evidence  of  payment  of 
the  premiums  due,  shall  be  evidence  of  compliance  with  Section  68. 

Sec.  72.  Subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Industrial  Board,  any 
employer  may  enter  into  or  continue  any  agreement  with  his  em- 
ployees to  provide  a  system  of  compensation,  benefit  or  insurance  in 
lieu  of  the  compensation  and  insurance  provided  by  this  act.  No  such 

54 


substitute  system  shall  be  approved  unless  it  confers  benefits  upon  in- 
jured employees  at  least  equivalent  to  the  benefits  provided  by  this 
Act,  or  if  it  requires  contributions  from  the  employees  unless  it  confers 
benefits  in  addition  to  those  provided  under  this  act  at  least  commen- 
surate with  such  contributions,  except  as  provided  in  Sections  25  and  26. 

'Such  substitute  system  may  be  terminated  by  the  Industrial  Board 
on  reasonable  notice  and  hearing  to  the  interested  parties  if  it  shall 
appear  that  the  same  is  not  fairly  administered  or  if  its  operation  shall 
disclose  latent  defects  threatening  its  solvency,  or  if  for  any  sub- 
stantial reason  it  fails  to  accomplish  the  purposes  of  this  act;  and  in 
this  case  the  Board  shall  determine  upon  the  proper  distribution  of 
all  remaining  assets,  if  any,  subject  to  the  right  of  any  party  in  interest 
to  take  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court,  under  the  same  rules  governing 
appeals  from  the  District  Court,  until  otherwise  provided  by  the  Board. 

Sec.  73.  All  policies  insuring  the  payment  of  compensation  under 
this  act  must  contain  a  clause  to  the  effect  that  as  between  the  em- 
ployer and  the  insurer  the  notice  to  or  knowledge  of  the  occurrence 
of  the  injury  on  the  part  of  the  insured  shall  be  deemed  notice  or 
knowledge,  as  the  case  may  be,  on  the  part  of  the  insurer;  that  juris- 
diction of  the  insured  for  the  purposes  of  this  act  sihall  be  jurisdiction 
of  the  insurer;  and  that  the  insurer  shall  in  all  things  be  bound  by  and 
subject  to  the  awards,  judgments  or  decrees  rendered  against  such 
insured,  whether  under  this  Act  or  at  common  law;  provided,  however, 
that  in  case  action  at  common  law  is  instituted,  that  while  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  insurer  to  investigate  and  defend  such  claims  and  suits,  it 
shall  not  be  liable  to  pay  any  judgments  resulting  therefrom  beyond  the 
limits  herein  provided. 

Sec.  74.  No  policy  of  insurance  against  liability  arising  under  this 
act  shall  be  issued  unless  it  contains  the  agreement  of  the  insurer 
that  it  will  promptly  pay  to  the  person  entitled  to  same  all  benefits 
conferred  by  this  act,  and  all  installments  of  the  compensation  that 
may  be  awarded  or  -agreed  upon,  and  that  the  obligation  shall  not  be 
affected  by  any  default  of  the  insured  after  the  injury,  or  by  any 
default  in  the  giving  of  any  notice  required  by  such  policy,  or  other- 
wise. Such  agreement  shall  be  construed  to  be  a  direct  promise  by 
the  insurer  to  the  person  entitled  to  compensation  enforceable  in 
his  name. 

Sec.  75.  Every  policy  for  the  insurance  of  the  compensation 
herein  provided,  or  against  liability  thereof,  shall  be  deemed  to  be 
made  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this1  act.  No  corporation,  associa- 
tion or  organization  sihall  enter  into  any  such  policy  of  insurance 
unless  its  form  shall  have  been  approved  by  the  Industrial  Board. 

PART  V. 
DEFINITIONS  AND  MISCELLANEOUS  PROVISIONS. 

Sec.  76.    In  this  Act,  unless  the  context  otherwise  requires: 
(a)     "Employer"  shall   include  the   State  and  any  municipal  cor- 
poration  within   the  State  or  any   political   division  thereof,  and   any 

55 


Individual,  firm,  association  or  corporation  or  the  receiver  or  trustee 
of  the  same  or  the  legal  representatives  of  a  deceased  employer,  using 
the  services  of  another  for  pay,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  Section  9 
hereof.  If  the  employer  is  insured  it  shall  include  his  insurer  so  far  as 
applicable. 

(b)  "Employee"  shall  include  every  person,  including  a  minor  in 
the  service  of  another  under  any  contract  of  hire  or  apprenticeship, 
written  or  implied,  but  not  including  any  person  who  is  expressly  ex- 
cluded by  the  provisions  of  this  Act.  Any  reference  to  an  employee  who 
has  been  injured  shall,  when  the  employee  is  dead,  also  include  his  legal 
representatives,  dependents  and  other  persons  to  whom  compensation 
may  be  payable. 

(c)  "Average  weekly  wages"  shall  mean  the  earnings  of  the  in- 
jured employee  in  the  employment  in  which  he  was  working  at  the 
time  of  the  injury  during  the  period  of  fifty-two  weeks  immediately 
preceding  the  date  of  injury,  divided  by  fifty-two;   ibut  if  the  injured 
employee  lost  more  than  seven  consecutive  calendar  days  during  such 
period,  although  not  in  the  same  week,  then  the  earnings  for  the  re- 
mainder of  such  fifty-two  weeks  shall  be  divided  by  the  number  of 
weeks  remaining  after  the  time  so  lost  has  been  deducted.    Where  the 
employment  prior  to  the  injury  extended  over  a  period  of  less  than 
fifty-two  weeks,  the  method  of  dividing  the  earnings  during  that  period 
by  the  number  of  weeks  and  parts  thereof  during  which  the  employee 
earned  wages  shall  be  followed  provided  results  just  and  fair  to  both 
parties  will  thereby  be  obtained.    Where  by  reason  of  the  shortness  of 
the  time  during  which  the  employee  has  been  in  the  employment  of  his 
employer  or  the  casual  nature  or  terms  of  the  employment,  it  is  im- 
practicable to  compute  the  average  weekly  wages  as  above  defined, 
regard  shall  be  had  to  the  average  weekly  amount  which  during  the 
fifty-two  weeks  previous  to  the  injury  was  being  earned  by  a  person 
in  the  same  grade,  employed  at  the  same  work  by  the  same  employer, 
or  if  there  is  no  person  so  employed,  by  a  person  in  the  same  grade 
employed  in  the  same  class  of  employment  in  the  same  district. 

Where  for  exceptional  reasons  the  foregoing  rule  will  be  unfair  such 
other  method  of  computing  average  weekly  wages  may  be  resorted  to 
as  will  most  nearly  approximate  the  amount  which  the  injured  workmen 
would  be  earning  were  it  not  for  the  injury. 

Wherever  allowances  of  any  character  made  to  an  employee  in 
lieu  of  wages  are  a  specified  part  of  the  wage  contract,  they  shall  be 
deemed  a  part  of  his  earnings. 

(d)  "Injury"   and   "Personal   Injury"   shall  mean   only  injury  by 
accident  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  the  employment  and  due 
to  a  condition  or  conditions  thereof,  and  shall  not  include  a  disease  in 
any  form  except  as  it  shall  result  proximately  from  the  injury. 

Sec.  77.  Compensation  under  this  Act  to  alien  dependent  widows, 
parents  and  children  under  the  age  of  17  years,  not  residents  of  the 
United  States,  shall  be  one-half  of  the  amount  provided  in  each  case  for 
residents,  in  no  case  to  exceed  the  sum  of  One  Thousand  Dollars 

56 


($1,000),  and  the  employer  may  at  any  time  commute  all  future  in- 
stallments of  compensation  to  alien  dependents  to  the  then  value  thereof, 
considering  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent  per  annum,  subject  to 
the  approval  of  the  Board.  Alien  widowers,  brothers  and  sisters  and 
children  over  the  age  of  17  years,  not  residents  of  the  United  States, 
shall  not  be  entitled  to  any  compensation. 

Sec.  78.  Any  notice  required  to  be  given  under  this  Act  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  been  properly  given  and  served  when  deposited  in  the 
mail  in  a  registered  letter  or  package  properly  stamped  and  addressed  to 
the  person  to  whom  notice  is  to  be  given  at  his  last  known  address  and 
in  time  to  reach  him  in  due  time  to  act  thereon.  Notice  may  also  be 
given  and  served  in  like  manner  as  are  notices  in  civil  actions.  Any 
notice,  given  and  served  as  provided  in  this  section  to  the  consular  rep- 
resentative of  the  nation  of  which  any  non-resident  dependent  of  a 
deceased  employee  is  a  citizen  or  subject  or  to  the  authorized  agent  or 
representative  of  any  such  official  residing  in  this  State,  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  been  properly  given  and  served  upon  such  dependent. 

Sec.  79.  If  any  section  or  provision  of  this  Act  be  decided  by  the 
courts  to  be  unconstitutional  or  invalid,  the  same  shall  not  affect  the 
validity  of  this  act  as  a  whole  or  any  part  thereof,  other  than  the  part 
so  decided  to  be  unconstitutional  or  invalid. 

Sec.  80.  All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  in  conflict  with  any  pro- 
visions of  this  Act  are  hereby  repealed  to  the  extent  of  such  conflict*. 

Sec.  81.  Appropriation:  For  the  purpose  of  paying  the  salaries 
and  expenses  of  the  members  of  the  Industrial  Board  and  its  em- 
ployees, the  sum  of  $25,000  per  year,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be 
necessary,  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  State  Treas- 
ury not  otherwise  appropriated. 

Sec.  82.  The  provisions  of  this  Act  shall  not  affect  pending  liti- 
gation. 

Sec.  83.  This  Act  shall  take  effect  on  July  1,  1917,  except  that 
Part  III,  with  the  exception  of  Sec.  67,  shall  take  effect  upon  approval. 


DIGEST  OF  THE  TENTATIVE  UTAH  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION 

LAW. 

TITLE,  ETC. 

Liability  provisions  effective  July  1,  1917;  administrative  provisions 
(except  requirement  of  accident  reports,  etc.,  by  employer),  effective 
from  date  of  approval  (§83.) 

SYSTEM  PROVIDED  FOR. 

Compensation,  with  insurance,  elective,  but  compulsory  as  to 
State,  counties,  etc.  (§§2-5,  18).  Supervised  by  Industrial  Board  of 
Utah  (Part  III). 

57 


HOW  ELECTED. 

Employer's  acceptance  is  presumed  in  absence  of  notice  to  con- 
trary at  time  of  hiring  or  30  days  prior  to  accident,  conspicuously 
posted  at  place  of  business  or  served  upon  employee  personally,  with 
copy  to  Board.  (§§2-4). 

Employee's  acceptance  is  presumed  in  absence  of  written  notice  to 
employer  at  time  of  hiring  or  30  days  prior  to  accident,  with  copy  to 
Board  (§§  2-4). 

HOW  ELECTION  CHANGED. 

Election  to  reject  may  be  changed  by  employer  or  employee  at  any 
time  by  notice  as  in  original  election  (§3). 

ALTERNATIVE  LIABILITY. 

If  employer  gives  notice  of  rejection,  defenses  of  contributory 
negligence,  fellow  servant's  fault  and  assumption  of  risks  are  abro- 
grated.  If  employer  accepts  Act,  and  employee  does  not,  defenses 
remain  (§§  10-12). 

EMPLOYMENTS  COVERED. 

All,  public  and  private,  except  casual  and  not  in  usual  course  of 
trade,  business,  etc.,  of  employer,  where  less  than  four  employed,  private 
household  or  domestic  servants,  unless  they  voluntarily  elect  to  come 
under  Act.  But  excepted  employments  are  subject  to  requirement  of 
reporting  accidents,  etc.  (§§9,  18,  76a,  b). 

EMPLOYMENT  IN  INTERSTATE  COMMERCE. 
Except  as   to  requirement  of  reporting  accidents,  etc.,  Act  does 
not  apply  to  employers  engaged  in  interstate  or  foreign  commerce  if 
injuries  to  their  employees   are   provided   for   by   Federal   enactment 
(§  19). 

INJURIES  COVERED. 

Personal  injuries  by  accident  arising  out  of  and  in  course  of  em- 
ployment, whether  within  the  State  or  outside,  or  in  a  foreign  country, 
unless  due  to  wilful  misconduct  (§§  2,  8,  20,  76d). 

NOTICE  OF  INJURY  AND  CLAIM  FOR  COMPENSATION. 
Notice  of  injury  must  be  given,  to  employer  immediately  or  as 
soon  as  practicable  thereafter,  unless  employer  has  knowledge  thereof 
or  other  excusable  grounds  exist.  'Compensation  (barred  if  notice  not 
given  within  30  days  after  injury  or  death.  Defect  in  notice  no  bar 
unless  employer  is  prejudiced  thereby.  Claim  must  be  filed  within 
1  year  after  injury  or  death  (§§  22-24). 

WAITING  PERIOD. 

iFirat  two  weeks  of  disability.  Compensation  begins  on  15th  day 
after  injury  (§28). 

58 


MEDICAL  AND  SURGICAL  AID. 

Employer  must  furnish  medical  aid,  etc.,  during  30  days  after  injury, 
in  absence  of  regular  "hospital"  arrangement,  with  maximum  liability 
therefor  of  $100,  and,  at  his  option,  may  continue  same  during  entire 
period  of  disability  or  any  remaining  part  thereof.  Employee's  refusal 
to  accept  treatment  suspends,  and  may  forfeit,  compensation  for  period 
of  continuance.  If  employer  fails  to  provide  such  attendance  for  30 
days,  he  is  liable  for  reasonable  cost  thereof,  subject  to  approval  of 
Board  (§§25-26). 

COMPENSATION    FOR    TOTAL    DISABILITY. 
Fifty  per  cent  of  average  weekly  wages,  maximum  $12,  minimum 
$5,  weekly;   maximum  period  3331-3  weeks,  maximum  amount  $4,000 
(§§29,  40). 

COMPENSATION  FOR  PARTIAL  DISABILITY. 
One-half  of  average  loss  of  earning  power,  maximum  $12.00 
weekly,  maximum  period  250  weeks,  including  period  of  total  dis- 
ability, if  any;  maximum  amount  $3,000.  Special  schedule  for  loss  of 
certain  members,  etc.,  in  lieu  of  other  compensation  (§§  30,  31,  40). 
Special  provisions  in  case  of  successive  injuries  (§§  33-35). 

COMPENSATION  FOR  DEATH. 

If  death  results  from  injury  within  250  weeks,  burial  expenses, 
maximum  $100,  and  in  addition,  to  total  dependents,  fifty  per  cent,  of 
average  wteekly  wages,  maximum  $12.00  weekly,  for  remainder 
of  period  between  death  and  250  weeks  after  injury;  to  partial 
dependents,  such  proportion  of  foregoing  as  amount  contributed  by  de- 
ceased to  their  support  bore  to  his  annual  earnings.  If  death  was  not 
due  to  injury,  balance  of  disability  award1  to  toe  paid  to  dependents 
(§§  36,  37,  40). 

AVERAGE  WAGES— HOW  COMPUTED. 

Average  weekly  wages  to  mean  earnings  for  preceding  year  divided 
by  52;  but  if  employee  lost  more  than  seven  consecutive  days'  time, 
such  loss  to  be  deducted  from  divisor.  Where  this  method  is  not  prac- 
ticable, regard  may  be  had  to  average  wages  of  another  person  in  the 
same  locality  and  class  of  employment,  or  probable  amount  of  earnings 
of  employee  if  injury  had  not  occurred  (§  76c). 

WHO  ARE  DEPENDENTS. 

Certain  persons  conclusively  presumed  totally  dependent.  In  other 
cases  dependency  is  determinate  according  to  facts  at  the  time  of 
injury  (§  38). 

NON-RESIDENT  ALIEN  BENEFICIARIES. 

Half  benefits,  manimum  $1,000.  Dependents  restricted  to  widows, 
parents  and  children  under  17.  (§  77.) 

59 


MEDICAL  EXAMINATION. 

Injured  employee,  if  requested  by  employer  or  ordered  by  Board, 
must  submit  to  medical  examination  at  reasonable  times  and  places. 
Employee  may  have  own  physician  present.  Refusal  to  submit  sus- 
pends, and  unless  justifiable,  forfeits,  right  to  compensation  during 
continuance.  In  case  of  death,  employer  or  Board  may  require  an 
autopsy  at  own  expense  (§  27). 

SETTLEMENT  OP  CLAIMS  AND  DISPUTES. 
Terms  of  compensation  may  be  fixed  by  agreement,  after  14 
days  from  date  of  injury,  subject  to  approval  of  Board;  or  by  Board, 
or  a  member  thereof,  after  a  hearing,  upon  application  of  either  party. 
Award  made  by  member  of  Board  is  subject  to  review  by  full  Board 
upon  application  made  within  seven  days  from  date  thereof  (§§  57-60). 

RIGHT  OP  APPEAL. 

An  award  of  the  Board  is  conclusive  as  to  questions  of  fact;  but 
within  30  days  either  party  may  appeal  to  Supreme5  Court  on  errors 
of  law;  or  Board  may  of  its  own  motion  certify  questions  of  law  to 
the  Supreme  Court  for  determination  (§  61). 

MODIFICATIONS    OF    AGREEMENTS   AND   AWARDS. 
The  Board  may  at  any  time,  on  its  own  motion,  or  upon  applica- 
tion of  any  party  in  interest,  on  the  ground  of  a  change  in  conditions, 
review  an  award  and  increase,  diminish  or  terminate  payments  (§  45). 

COMMUTATIONS. 

Upon  application  of  either  party,  the  Board  may  authorize  monthly 
or  quarterly,  instead  of  weekly,  payments.  After  13  weeks,  a  weekly 
payment,  in  unusual  cases,  may  be  redeemed  by  a  lump  sum  payment, 
by  agreement,  subject  to  approval  of  Board.  In  case  of  a  minor 
permanently  disabled,  Board  may  in  its  discretion  award  a  lump  sum 
at  any  time.  Or  Board  may  order  employer  to  pay  lump  sum  to  trustee 
and  be  discharged  (§§  42-44). 

PREFERENCE. 

The  right  to  compensation  has  the  same  preference  against  em- 
ployer's assets  as  is  allowed  for  unpaid  wages  for  labor  (§  16). 

ASSIGNMENTS  AND  EXEMPTIONS. 

A  claim  for  compensation  is  not  assignable  and  is  exempt  from  all 
claims  of  creditors  (§  17). 

PROCEEDINGS  TO  COLLECT  COMPENSATION. 
Upon  presentation  of  a  certified  copy  of  approved  memorandum  of 
agreement  or  decision  of  Board,  Supreme  Court  must  render  judgment 
in  accordance  therewith,  which  has  same  effect  as  though  rendered  in 
action  (5  62). 

* 

60 


ATTORNEYS'  LIENS  AND  FEES,  ETC. 

Attorneys'  and  physicians'  fees  and  hospital  charges  are  subject  to 
approval  by  the  Board  (§  65). 

MINORS  AND  INCOMPETENT  PERSONS. 

Election  to  reject  provisions  of  Act  on  behalf  of  a  minor  employee 
may  be  made  only  by  parent  or  guardian  (§4).  Payments  to  minors 
under  18  or  dependent  children  over  18  must  be  made  through  trustee 
appointed  by  Supreme  Court.  Rights  accruing  to  minor  under  18  or  in- 
competent person  may  be  enforced  in  his  behalf  by  guardian  or  trustee. 
Xo  time  limitation  is  to  run  against  minor  dependent  or  incompetent 
person  pending  appointment  of  guardian  or  trustee  (§§  46-48). 

SUBROGATION. 

Where  right  of  action  exists  against  third  party,  employee  has 
option  either  to  claim  compensation  or  sue  third  party  for  damages.  It 
employer  or  insurer  pays  compensation,  he  is  subrogated  to  employee's 
rights  against  third  party  to  the  extent  of  compensation  paid  or  pay- 
able (§§  13,  76a). 

SUB-CONTRACTORS. 

If  injury  occurs  on  premises  u/nder  control  of  principal,  he  is 
liable  for  compensation  to  employees  of  contractor  or  sub-contractor, 
but  is  entitled  to  indemnity  from  the  latter.  Claim  must  be  made  in 
the  first  place  against  immediate  employer  (§  14). 

SUITS  FOR  DAMAGES. 

If  elected,  compensation  is  the  exclusive  remedy  for  injuries  cov- 
ered (§6),  but  not  so  as  to  relieve  employer  from  penalty  for  neglect 
of  statutory  duty  (§7). 

ACCIDENT  PREVENTION. 
No  provision. 

REPORTS   REQUIRED   OF   EMPLOYER. 

Employer  must  report  to  the  Board  all  injuries  causing  absence 
from  work  for  more  tihan  two  days,  within  a  week  after  occurrence; 
and  must  make  supplementary  report  after  60  days  or  upon  termination 
of  disability;  $25  fine  for  failure  to  comply  (§  67).  Evidence  of  in- 
surance or  financial  responsibility  must  be  filed  by  assenting  employer 
with  Board  within  30  days  after  Act  takes  effect  and  annually  there- 
after (§69). 

"CONTRACTING  OUT." 

Alternative  compensation  or  insurance  schemes  are  authorized, 
subject  to  approval  of  Board,  provided  benefits  are  not  less  than  those 
under  the  Act.  If  such  arrangement  involves  contributions  by  em- 
ployees, additional  benefits  must  be  commensurate  therewith  (§  72). 
Other  contracting  out  forbidden  (§  15). 

61 


INSURANCE. 

Assenting  employer  may  insure  himself,  upon  furnishing  Board 
with  proof  of  financial  responsibility,  with  deposit  of  bond  or  other 
security,  if  required  by  (Board,  or  he  may  insure  in  some  regularly 
authorized  stock  casualty  insurance  company  or  join  with  others  in 
forming  regularly  authorized  mutual  insurance  companies.  Penalty  for 
non-compliance,  from  $1  to  $50  (according  <to  number  of  employees) 
for  each  day's  neglect  (§§68-70).  Insurance  policies  must  stipulate  that 
notice  to  insured  is  notice  to  insurer;  that  insurer  is  directly  liable  to 
employee,  and  that  employer's  default  does  not  discharge  insurer;  and 
are  otherwise  deemed  subject  to  provisions  of  Act  (§§73-75). 

MIS'CE'LiLANEOUiS  PROVISIONS. 

If  injured  employee  refuses  suitable  employment  procured  by  em- 
ployer, he  is  not  entitled  to  compensation  for  period  of  refusal,  unless 
justifiable  (§  32). 

Joint  employers  of  same  employee  may  agree  upon  apportionment 
of  liability  (§  49). 

If  proceedings  brought  before  Board  or  Court  are  not  based  on 
reasonable  grounds,  entire  cost  thereof  ma^  be  assessed  against  party 
bringing  them  (§  63). 

CONSTITUTIONALITY. 

If  any  part  of  Act  is  held  unconstitutional,  it  shall  not  affect  the 
validity  of  the  Act  as  a  whole  or  of  any  other  part  thereof.  (§  79.) 

On  account  of  Article  16,  Section  5  of  the  Utah  Constitution,  "The 
right  of  action  to  recover  damages  for  injuries  resulting  in  death,  shall 
never  be  abrogated,  and  the  amount  recoverable  shall  not  be  subject 
to  statutory  limitation,"  where  injuries  result  in  death,  heirs  may  sue 
under  common  law,  but  employer  shall  have  all  common  law  defenses 
restored  (§§6,  11). 


62 


Extracts  from  letters  received  by  the  Em- 
ployer's Liability  and  Workmen's 
Compensation  Commission. 


UTAH  FUEL  CO. 
Judge  Building 
Salt  Lake  City 

Employers'  Liability  and  Workmen's  Compensation  Commission 
Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

Dear  Sirs: 

In  compliance  with  our  verbal  understanding,  and  based  on  the 
second  proof  sheets  printed  early  in  September  last  of  the  tentative 
draft  for  "The  Utah  Workmen's/  Compensation  Act"  prepared  by  your 
honorable  committee,  I  wish  to  submit  a  few  suggestions  in  relation 
thereto. 

The  bill  as  proposed  seems  to  me  ton  be,  in  general,  an  excellent 
one,  containing  the  best  provisions  of  previous  legislation  on  the  sub- 
ject and  leaving}  out  undesirable  features  in  the  laws  of  many  of  the 
states. 

While  not  true  in  all  cases  in  general,  the  compensation  in  the 
proposed  law  seems  to  be  in  excess  of  that  established  in  surrounding 
states,  whose  industries  are  most  strongly  itt  competition  with  those  of 
Utah.  Utah  industries  affected  would  undoubtedly  be  adversely  in- 
fluenced to  a  certain  extent  by  this  situation,  as  it  would  either  result 
in  a  reduction  in  earning  power  or  a  reduced  ability  to  meet  the  com- 
petition from  these  states  if  the  increased  cost  of  compensation  is 
added  to  the  cost  of  the  product.  It  would  not  seem  unreaonsable  that 
the  compensation  in  Utah,  as  far  as  it  depends  upon  this  feature  of 
the  case,  should  certainly  not  be  in  excess  of  the  others. 

I  trust  that  the  suggestions  made  herein  will  be  considered  as  being 
made  in  friendly  spirit,  and  from  a  source  that  is  favorable  to  a  good 
and  equitable  Compensation  Law,  which!  I  believe  the  Commission  will 
undoubtedly  present  to  the  Legislature. 

Thanking  you  for  your  consideration,  I  am 

Yours  very  truly, 

H.  G.  WILLIAMS, 
Consulting  Manager,  Utah  Fuel  Co. 


MANUFACTURERS  ASSOCIATION  OF  UTAH 

Salt  Lake  City 

October  12,  1916. 

Employer's  Liability  and  Workmen's  Compensation  Commission, 
Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

Gentlemen: 

In  accordance  with  your  request  we  take  much  pleasure  in  stating 
our  views  upon  the  tentative  bill  prepared  by  your  honorable  commis- 
sion covering  the  subject  of  Employer's  Liability  and  Workmen's  Com- 
pensation. 

The  copy  of  the  bill  now  in  our  hands,  considered  as  a  whole,  has 
our  hearty  endorsement.  Wev  commend  the  commission  upon  the 
earnestness  with  which  the  subject  has  beenf  studied  and  the  manner 
in  which  the  different  sections  have  been  worded. 

One  of  the  vital  parts  of  the  bill,  of  course,  is  the  compensation 
schedule.  By  comparing  this  schedule  with  that  of  other  states  we 
observe  tsat  it  is  higher  than  many  states  and  lower  than  others.  We 
understand,  however,  that  the  commission  has  endeavored  to  strike  a 
happy  middle  ground  upon  which  all  interested  may  stand.  The  sched- 
ule is  in  a  sense  a  compromise,  and  in  consideration  of  this  fact  our 
Association  will  offer  no  objection  to  it,  providing  it  is  adopted  as  now 
printed.  However,  if  any  effort  is  made  to  raise  the  schedule,  in1  our 
judgment,  it  will  seriously  effect  the  bill,  because  it  will  place  a  handi- 
cap upon  manufacturing  in  this  state  which  the  industries  cannot  stand. 

One  of  our  keenest  competitors  in  manufacturing  lines  is  Colorado, 
and  in  comparison  with  the  'Colorado  law  the  schedule  of  compensa- 
tion, in  many  instances,  shows  a  decided  increase  over  theirs. 

An  example :  Take  the  subjects  of  total  disability.  Under  our  pro- 
posed law  the  amount  which  may  be  paid  is  $4,000,  while  in  Colorado 
the  amount  is  but  $2,080.  The  proposed  maximum  wage  recovery  is  $12, 
as  compared  with  $8.00  in  Colorado. 

If  the  schedule  should  be  further  increased  the  rate  of  insurance 
will  be  so  high,  it  is  evident  that  a  most  serious  handicap  will  be  placed 
upon  our  industries. 

We  think  that  in  some  instances  the  schedule  should  be  made  lower, 
but  on  the  whole  it  will  probably  work  out  all  right. 

The  matter  of  having  the  law  apply  strictly  to  injuries  rising  out  of 
and  in  the  course  of  employment  is  very  important.  We  believe  that 
you  will  agree  witH  us  tnat  we  are  not  ^prepared  at  the  present  time 
to  include,  even  by  inference,  the  question  of  occupational  diseases.  This 
question  opens  up  a  new  and  broad  field,  whictt  must  be  handled  sepa- 
rately. 

It  seems  to  us  that  the  definition  of  an  injury,  in  Section  78d, 
should  remain  as  it  now  is,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  addition 
of  the  word  proximate  before  the  word  injury,  on  the  last  line. 

We  also  commend  your  commission  upon  the  time  designated  as  the 
waiting  period.  It  may  be  of  interest,  however,  to  note  that  in  Colorado 
this  time  is  increased  to  three  weeks.  We  presume,  however,  that  her« 
again  a  compromise  has  been  struck  and  the  time  placed  at  fourteen 
calendar  days.  In  our  opinion  it  is  important  that  this  waiting  period 
shall  not  be  made  any  lower. 

By  comparison  with  other  features  the  question  of  an  industrial 
board  to  administer  the  law  is  not  of  great  importance;  however,  w« 
believe  that  economy  should  be  a  watchword  in  framing  this  law,  and  it 
has  occurred  to  us  that,  perhaps,  there  can  be  a  saving  in  administra- 

2 


tion  costs  if  but  one  commissioner  is  provided  for  and  a  part  of  the 
work  of  administration  given  to  the  district  judges. 

When  this  law  becomes  operative  the  work  of  the  district  judges 
should  be  decreased.  A  considerable  number  of  cases  arising  out  of 
personal  injuries,  which  are  now  handled  by  the  courts,  will  be  cared 
for  under  the  law  without  suit,  and  when  disputes  arise  they  will  or- 
dinarily be  arbitrated  by  those  selected  to  administer  the  law  and  will 
not  demand  the  time  of  the  courts. 

Indiana,  with  a  population  seven  times  as  large  as  ours,  is  able  to 
administer  its  law1  satisfactorily  with  buU  three  commissioners,  and  in 
this  state,  with  its  small  population,  it  seems  to  us  one  commissioner 
will  be  sufficient.  We  commend  this  matter  to  your  earnest  attention. 

Assuring  you  of  our  best  wishes,  and  of  our  earnest  desire  to  co- 
operate with  you  in  every  way  possible  to  secure  a  bill  which  will  meet 
with  the  approval  of  all  parties  concerned,  we  remain 

Sincerely  yours, 

MANUFACTURERS  ASSOCIATION  OF  UTAH, 
By.  Geo.  S.  McAllister,  Pres. 


UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

September  10th,  1916. 

H.  B.  Windsor,  Secy., 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

My  dear  Mr.  Windsor: 

I  have  your  letter  of  the  8th  inst.  and  also  the  last  print  of  your 
proposed  Workmen's  Compensation  law. 

I  regret  very  much  that  my  time  has  been  so  occupied  that  I  have 
not  been  able  to  go  over  the  proposed  bill  with  care.  I  have,  however, 
read  it  over.  I  think  in  the  main  it  is  an  excellent  law.  The  only 
general  criticisms  which  I  have  are: 

First,  I  think  the  schedule  of  compensation  is  rather  low.  My  own 
judgment  is  that  payment  to  the  widow  for  death  claims  ought  to  run 
for  at  least  eight  years,  and  for  minor  children  until  they  become  six- 
teen. In  this  connection  I  invite  your  attention  to  tlie  last  draft  of 
the  bill  which  I  introduced  in  Congress;  page  30,  section  21.  In  the 
case  of  permanent  total  disability  T  think  the  payment  should  continue 
for  life.  (See  page  35.) 

Second,  I  believe  it  to  be  unwise  to  deny  compensation  in  any  case 
except  where  the  accident  was  due  to  the  intoxication  of  the  employe 
or  resulted  from  an  attempt  to  injure  or  destroy  himself  or  another. 
(See  page  71,  paragraph  "Jv  of  the  enclosed  Report  on  my  bill.) 

I  also  make  the  following  suggestions  as  to  the  phraseology  of 
the  bill: 

1.  Section  2,  line  2,  should  you  not  insert  the  word  "conclusively" 
before  the  word  "presume?"     Otherwise  there  is  danger  of  your  pro- 
vision being  construed  so  as  to  allow  the  presumption  to  be  rebutted. 

2.  Page  4,  section  17:   should  you  not  also  provide  that  the  claim 
for  compensation  shall  be  exempt  from  execution?  This  may  be  included 
under  the  phrase  "Claims  of  Creditors,"  but  I  am  not  sure. 

3.  Section  18  provides  broadly  that  the  provisions  of  the  act  shall 
apply  to  the  employes  of  the  state,  counties,  etc.     Are  there  not  some 


provisions  that  from  their  very  nature  will  not  apply  to  the  govern- 
ment; such  as  for  example,  provisions  with  reference  to  insurance? 

4.  Page  6,  section  25,  first  line:  should  you  not  insert  the  word 
"first"  before  the  word  "thirty",  so  as  to  read  "during  the  first  thirty 
days"? 

Sections  6  and  11  I  think  are  substantially  like  the  provisions  of 
the  New  Jersey  law  and  other  elective  laws,  and  are  sufficient  to 
coerce  acceptance,  which,  of  course,  is  their  purpose. 

Before  expressing  myself  with  reference  to  other  matters  in  the 
bill  I  should  like  to  go  over  it  with  a  great  deal  more  care  than  I  have 
had  time  to  do.  If  you  have  not  finished  the  work  by  that  time,  I 
would  be  glad  to  talk  with  you  during  the  first  week  of  October,  when 
I  shall  probably  be  in  Salt  Lake. 

Very  sincerely, 

GEORGE  SUTHERLAND. 

Also  from  letter  of  December  7th,  1916,  written  from 
Washington,  D.  C. : 

I  have  again  gone  over  the  draft  of  your  tentative  workmen's 
compensation  bill,  but  find  nothing  to  suggest  beyond  what  I  have 
already  said. 

I  still  think  the  compensation  provided  is  somewhat  low,  but  it 
may  be  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  leave  the  schedule  as  it  is  in  order 
to  get  the  bill  through  and  establish  the  principle. 

I  think  the  experience  of  most  of  the  states  has  been  that  in  actual 
operation  these  compensation  laws  have  noli  been  as  expensive  as  it 
was  anticipated. 

I  sincerely  hope  you  will  succeed  in  getting  the  bill  through  at 
the  present  session  of  the  legislature. 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

GEO.  SUTHERLAND. 


From  the  Labor  World  of  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  with  relation  to 
State  Insurance : 

I  do  believe  that  private  enterprise  is  the  better  agency  for  the 
accomplishment  of  general  betterment  and  welfare  than  the  state,  in 
maters  that  can  be  better  attended  to  by  individual  effort.  '•  Your 

law  is  a  comprehensive  one.  *  *  *  On  the  surface  of  it  I  do  not  see 
that  labor  can  reasonably  complain  about  it,  and  I  am  sure)  that  the 
employers  will  not.  One  thing  I  wish  to  state  most  emphatically  is 
that  Workmen's  Compensation  is  now  in  this  country  to  stay  and  will 
spread  and  become  established  in  every  state  in  the  Union.  Our  aim 
ought  to  be  to  secure  the  best  and  we*  will  never  attain  that  without 
making  a  start  of  some  kind.  *  *  * 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

JOHN  D.  PRINGLE, 

Editor 


TAFT  &  SHERMAN 

Attorneys  and  Counsellors  at  Law 
15  William  Street,  New  York 

October  2,  1916. 

Secretary,  Employers'  Liability  and  Workmen's  Compensation 
Commission, 

State  Capitol, 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 
Dear  Sir: 

Yours  of  the  21st  ult.  to  the  Executive  Council  of  the  National 
Civic  Federation,  enclosing  copy  of  your  tentative  bill  for  workmen's 
compensation,  has  been  referred  to  me  by  the  Secretary.  I  have  already 
gone  over  it  looking  for  defects  of  form  for*  the  Workmen's  Compensa- 
tion Publicity  Bureau,  and  my  criticisms  and  suggestions  will  doubtless 
be  communicated  to  you  by  Mr.  Jones,  the  secretary  of  that  Bureau. 

As  to  substance,  what  the  National  Civic  Federation  approves  and 
advocates  is  to  be  gathered  from  its  publications  which,  I  am  informed, 
have  already  been  sent  you.  Considering  the  difficultiess  in  your  way 
to  making  compensation  compulsory  and  exclusive  of  all  liability  for 
damages,  I  think  your  bill  complies  with  the  standards  set  by  the  Civic 
Federation.  Beyond  that  nobody  is  now  competent  and  ready  to  speak 
for  that  organization. 

Speaking  for  myself  alone  (and  disregarding  some  features  about 
which  I  have  peculiar  notions  and  as  to  which  your  bill  follows  the  pre- 
vailing and  generally  accepted  standards),  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the 
bill  is  very  good,  not  only  in  substance,  but  also  in  detail.  I  would 
like  to  see  it  more  liberal  for  cases  of  serious,  certain  and  long-continued 
disablement;  but  caution  about  establishing' a  system  of  long-continued 
pensions  is  proper  in  the  first  step.  And  the  bill  would  be  a  tremendous 
improvement  over  your  existing  law. 

Yours  very  truly, 

P.   TECUMSEH   SHERMAN. 


WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  PUBLICITY  BUREAU 


From  a  letter  of  F.  Robertson  Jones,  Secretary  of  Work- 
men's Compensation  Publicity  Bureau,  No.  80  Maiden  Lane, 
New  York  City: 

Constitutional  amendment.  I  think  that  it  would  be  advisable  for 
your  Commission  in  its  report  to  recommend  an  amendment  to  your 
state  constitution  to  empower  the  legislature  to  enact  a  compulsory 
Workmen's  compensation  law,  specifically  authorizing  a  limitation  upon 
employers'  liability  for  compensation  fro  death  by  occupational  accident. 
But  the  problem  of  framing  such  an  amendment  is  so  particularly  a  mat- 
ter for  local  counsel  that  we  would  not  like  to  presume  to  advise  you 
thereon. 

5 


Regulation  of  Mutuals.  Foreign  experience  shows  that  mutual  in- 
surance will  not  be  successful  nor  protect  its  members  from  very  un- 
expected and  disturbing  shocks  unless  the  risks  are  peculiarly  well  dis- 
tributed. The  welfare  of  employers  and  their  employees,  therefore, 
calls  for  what  may  appear  like  very  severe  regulations  of  mutuals  in 
order  to  secure  something  approaching  to  a  proper  distribution  of  risks. 

Mutuals  should  be  required  to  maintain  reserves  sufficiento  to  cover 
all  outstanding  liabilities,  under  approximately  the  same  conditions  as  a 
stock  company.  Otherwise  there  should  be  severe  regulations  as  to 
dividends  and  the  withdrawing  members  should  remain  liable  to  assess- 
ment for  333  1-3  weeks  after  withdrawal. 


MAY    DAY   MINING  &   MILLING  CO.,  John    Dern,   President 

M.    P.    Braffet,    Vice-President 

Office  515  Dooly  Block  j.  c.   Dick,  General  Manager 

P    r>     R«v   141ft  w-   s-    McCornick,   Treasurer 

P'   °'   BOX   n  A.   Reeves,   Secretary 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  December  22,  1916. 


Employers'  Liability  and  Workmen's  Compensation  Commission, 
City. 

Gentlemen: 

I  have  carefully  examined  the  draft  prepared  by  the  Commission 
of  the  proposed  Utah  Compensation  Law,  and  I  think  the  Commission 
has  been  wise  to  recommend  as  simple  and  uncomplicated  a  law,  as 
possible  for  the  beginning.  Experience  will  teach  us  what  changes  to 
make  and  the  recommendations  of  the  Industrial  Commission  will  be 
helpful  at  succeeding  legislative  sessions.  The  principal  thing  is  to 
install  a  conservative,  workable  Compensation  System.  I  take  great 
pride  in  the  fact  that1  the  great  Chancellor  Bismark  was  the  originator 
of  the  Workmen's  Compensation  idea  in  Europe,  and  that  no  country 
has  carried  the  principles  of  justice  and  humanity  which  Workmen's 
Compensation  Laws  embody  to  a  greater  degree  of  perfection  than 
Germany. 

Some  criticism  has  been  made  on  the  schedule  which  you  propose, 
in  that  it  is  larger  than  that  in:  any  of  the  surrounding  States,  except, 
perhaps,  Nevada.  We  must  not  put  our  producers  under  too  large  a  han- 
dicap in  the  beginning.  If  it  appears  that  we  are  planning  to  at  once 
install  an  unduly  large  schedule,  in  comparison  with  Wyoming  and 
Coolrado,  it  will  arouse  the  antagonism  of  Utah  producers,  whereaa 
they  would  all  heartily  endorse  a  Compensation  Bill  that  did  not  en- 
danger their  existence,  and  cheerfully  pay  the  added  cost  that  it  will 
entail. 

The  Constitutional  inhibition  in  case  of  death,  while  unfortunate,  is 
not  vital.  I  understand  that  Oklahoma  had  the  same  difficulty,  but  she 
installed  the  system  and  later  cured  the  defect  by  a  constitutional 
amendment.  If  a  farmer  had  a  stump  in  a  fertile  field  he  would  plough 
around  it  until  it  could  be  removed,  and  not  let  the  field  lie  untilled. 

Your  proposed  law  seems  to  follow  the  usual  lines  laid  down  by 
the  majority  of  the  thirty-two  Compensation  States,  and  strikes  a  very 
fair  average. 

Several  weeks  ago  I  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Fr.  Von  Fischer 
Tnherz,  Austrian  Vice-Consul  at  Denver,  stating  that  he  understood 


that  a  Commission  had  been  appointed  to  prepare  a  Workmen's  Com- 
pensation and  Employers'  Liability  measure,  and  report  to  the  incom- 
ing legislature,  and  inasmuch  as  a  great  many  Austrians  are  employed 
in  the  mines  and  smelters  in  Utah,  he  was  very  much  interested  i» 
the  matter,  and  would  appreciate  iti  4f  I  could  give  him  a  synopsis  of 
the  proposed  measure.  I  sent  him  the  copy  of  the  bill  which  Mr. 
Windsor  had  the  kindness  to  give  me,  and  asked  him;  to  make  such 
criticism  and  recommendations  as  he  cared  to  and  I  would  be  glad  to 
submit  same  to  the  Commission.  I  enclose  herewith  his  reply,  from 
which  you  will  note  that  in  general  he  seems  to  express  satisfaction! 
with  the  proposed  bill,  but  feels  that  the  time  allowed  for  giving  notice 
of  accident,  which  is  thirty  days,  and  the  time  allowed  for  the  filing  of 
claim  in  the  case  of  death,  which  is  one  year,  should  be  extended,  and 
that  the  limit  allowed  for  recovery  ($1,000)  in  alien  cases  should  b« 
amplified  to  $1,500.  He  also  recommends  payment  for  life  in  cases 
of  total  disability.  He  approves  the  provisions  for  the  commutation  of 
alien  indemnities,  so  that  an  early,  complete  closing  of  a  death  claim 
can  be  made,  but  feels  that  the  rate  of  discount  (6  per  cent)  is  rather 
high. 

I  hope  to  see  a  Compensation  Law1  replace  the  present  iniquitous 
Employers'  Liability  System,  whereby  few  recover  and  many  suffer,  at 
the  coming  session  of  the  legislature. 

Yours  very  truly, 

JOHN  BERN. 


WESLEY   KING 
309  South  Main  Street 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  December  23rd,  1916. 

Employers'  Liability  and  Workmen's  Compensation  Commission, 
City. 

Gentlemen : 

In  your  report  to  the  Legislature  on  the  matter  of  a  workman's 
compensation  act  for  Utah,  I  suggest  that  you  discuss  the  question,  of 
insurance.  Under  any  compensation  plan,  both  employer  and  employ* 
must  be  assured  of  an  adequate  and  practical  provision  for  insuring  the 
payments  for  injuries  as  fixed  by  the  proposed  law. 

Having  been  interested  in  the!  manufacturing  business  in  eight  of 
our  western  states,  in  building  construction  business  in  Utah  and  in 
the  surety  and  casualty  business  in  all  the  mountain  and  coast  states 
for  some  years  past,  I  have  taken  a  keen  interest  in  this  phase  of  the 
subject  and  have  studied  carefully  the  experiments  which  our  sister 
states  have  made,  and  have  reached  some  definite  conclusions. 

Few  today  contest  the  plan  of  fixed  compensation  for  injuries  in- 
cident to  industrial  operations.  The  workingman  feels  that  he  is  entitled 
to  it  and  most  employers  want  him  to  have  it.  Providing  for  this  com- 
pensation has  been  considered  a  problem.  It  is  exactly  the  same  prob- 
lem presented  by  fire,  life,  burglary  or  other  similar  loss.  A  problem 
which  has  been  satisfactorily  solved  through  the  organization  of  in- 
surance companies.  It  has  not  yet  been  satisfactorily  solved  by  any 


state  insurance  plan.  Some  states  have  provided  for  the  distribution  «f 
funds  collected  by  assessments  upon  employers.  I^oneJ  have  absolutely 
insured  the  employer.  None  have  absolutely  insured  the  employe. 

In  the  Montana  law  we  find  as  follows: 

"If  at  any  time  there  shall  not  be  sufficient  money  in  the  Accident 
Fund  with  which  to  pay  any  warrants  drawn  thereon,  the  employer,  on 
account  of  whose  workmen  the  warrant  was  drawn,  shall  pay  the  same, 
and  upon  his  next  contribution  to  such  fund  he  shall  be  credited  with  the 
amount  so  paid." 

In  this  provision  I  find  no  insurance. 

In  Section  40  of  the  Nevada  law  there  occurs  the  following  stipu- 
lation: 

"The  State  of  Nevada  shall  not  be  liable  for  the  payment  of  any  com- 
pensation under  this  act,  save  and  except  from  the  said  State  insurance 
fund,  to  be  derived  from  the  payment  of  premiums  as  provided  in  this 
act." 

In  a  later  amendment,  we  also  find: 

"The  State  of  Nevada  shall  not  be  liable  for  the  payment  of  any 
compensation  or  any  salary  or  expenses  in  the  administration  of  this  act, 
save  and  except  from  the  State  Insurance  Fund,  but  shall  be  responsi- 
ble for  the  safety  and  preservation  of  the  State  Insurance  Fund." 

Other  States  having  State  Funds  have  similar  provisions. 

The  criticism  is  certainly  well  founded  that: 

"State  Funds,  whether  monopolistic  or  competitive,  give  no  guar- 
antee of  solvency,  nor  provide  either  adequate  reserves  or  surplus.  They 
are  Public  Mutuals  lacking  enough  volume  to  secure  an  insurable 
average;  managed  by  officers  appointed  by  the  political  heads  in  power 
instead  of  having  officers  among  business  men  responsible  to  those  who 
pay  the  premiums." 

Most  certainly  the  State  should  guarantee  the  same  prompt  pay- 
ment to  those  who  are  in  distress  that  is  required  of  any  other  insurance 
carrier,  whether  Stock  Company  or  Mutual,  even  if  a  catastrophe  such 
as  the  Schofield  disaster  causes  ai  drawing  upon  other  State  Funds,  or 
else  it  should  not  undertake  the  responsibility  at  all,  but  should  leave  it 
to  carefully  supervised  companies  of  unquestioned  responsibility. 

The  experience  of  West  Virginia,  whose  State  Fund  was  made  in- 
solvent by  catastrophes  to  the  amount  of  half  a  million  dollars;  that  of 
the  New  York  State  Compensation  Fund,  which  has  been  obliged  to  pass 
the  payment  of  its  dividends;  that  of  the  Wisconsin  State  Fire  Fund, 
which  has  gone  bankrupt  with  forty-three  million  dollars  of  insurance 
still  in  force;  that  of  the  Hail  Insurance  Fund  of  North  Dakota,  which 
has  now  announced  thati  it  would  probably  be  able  to  pay  38  cents  on 
the  dollar  for  1916  and  which  never  did  pay  its  losses  in  full;  that  of  the 
State  of  Washington,  whose  Insurance  Fund  is  impaired  by  over  half 
a  million  dollars,  according  to  their  State  Auditor,  Mr.  C.  W.  Clausen, 
who  makes  the  charge  that  looseness  of  management  has  made  it  easy 
for  various  irregularities  to  occur  and  that  a  vital  defect  in  the  operation 
of  the  law  is  in  the  employment  of  men  and  women  lacking  in  ability 
and  in  experience,  as  a  result  of  political  preference,  together  with  the 
criticisms  and  comments  of  Chairman  Caldwell  of  the  Kentucky  Com- 
pensation Board  concerning  the  operations  of  the  Ohio  Industrial  Acci- 
dent Fund,  are  interesting  in  the  study  of  this  important  question.  The 
fact  that  several  Insurance  Companies  have  lately  been  obliged  to  retire 
from  business,  or  to  reinsure  on  account  of  their  experience  with  the 
Employers'  Liability  and  Workmen's  Compensation  lines  and  that  sev- 
eral large  and  well-managed  Companies  have  lately  announced  that  they 
will  discontinue  these  lines  until  the  experience  and  the  data  and  sta- 
tistics have  become  more  reliable,  lead  me  to  recommend  that  the  State 

8 


of  Utah  follow  the  example  of  the  large  majority  of  States  having  Com- 
pensation Laws  and  do  not,  in  the  beginning,  at  least,  complicate  the  in- 
stalling of  the  proposed  Act  with  this  and  other  matters  that  should  be 
inaugurated  by  separate  Acts  or  amendments'  as  later  experience  jus- 
tifies. 

The  way  is  open  for  all  who  think  there  are  profits  in  this  line  of 
business  to  join  in  the  establishment  of  privately  operated  Mutual  In- 
surance Companies,  whose  members  should  be  under  an  unlimited  re- 
sponsibility for  all  losses,  which  should  be  under  State  supervision,  so 
that  proper  reserves  to  carry  all  installments  of  Compensation  to  ma- 
turity, should  be  maintained. 

I  am  impressed  with  what  the  Connecticut  Compensation  Commis- 
sion said  in  its  report  submitting  a  proposed  Compensation  Act: 

"Under  the  plan  recommended  by  the  act  submitted  herewith,  there 
is  a  direct  responsibility  by  the  employer'  to  the  workman.  The  work- 
man's claim  is  privileged,  in  case  of  insolvency,  over  all  others.  In  case 
the  employer  takes  out  insurance,  as  he  almost  universally  will,  the 
claim  of  the  injured  workman  is  made  a  lien  upon  the  policy,  so  that 
the  insurance  company  is  bound  to  see  to  its  payment  in  case  of  the 
inability  of  the  employer.  The  workman  therefore  is  doubly  secured  for 
payment. 

"The  expense  of  state-managed  insurance  must  of  necessity  be 
large.  A  high  order  of  ability  and  experience  would  be  necessary  in  its 
management,  which  must  be  adequately  paid,  and  the  expenses  of 
actuaries  and  other  employes  would  be  heavy. 

"It  is  against  the  general  American  policy  for  the  State  to  assume 
the  transaction  of  business  until  it  sufficiently  appears  that  there  is  a 
strong  necessity  for  such  a  step.  This  does  not  so  far  appear.  It  is 
the  general  belief  in  this  country  that,  except  in  a  certain  narrow  class 
of  activities,  the  State  does  not  manage  business  with  as  much  economy 
and  efficiency  as  private  concerns. 

"For  these  reasons  the  Connecticut  Commission  has  deemed  it  not 
advisable  to  recommend  either  state  or  state-managed  insurance." 

Our  sister  states,  Wyoming  and  Nevada,  are  now  experimenting 
with  state  insurance.  The  compensation  laws  in  those  states  cover  only 
the  extra-hazardous  occupations,  so  that  their  experience  may  not  ever 
prove  much  of  a  guide  until  their  laws  are  expanded  to  include  general 
employment,  nor  indeed  until  they  have  accumulated  some  real  experi- 
ence, which  only  a  lapse  of  several  years  makes  possible.  As  yet 
they  are  too  young  in  the  business  to  serve  as  a  guide  for  Utah  legis- 
lators. 

I  sincerely  trust  that  the  Utah  Commission  will  not  only  advise 
against  the  adoption  of  state  insurance,  but  will  strongly  oppose  it.  I 
see  no  difference  between  the  state  engaging  in  this  character  of  en- 
terprise than  in  any  of  the  hundreds  of  other  commercial  endeavors.  If 
it  may  write  compensation  insurance,  then  why  not  life,  fire,  personal 
accident  and  health  and  automobile  insurance;  why  not  the  hardware, 
grocery  and  drug  business;  why  not  the  manufacture  of  shoes,  sugar 
and  such  like,  and  why  not  conduct  five-and-ten-cent  stores?  The  prin- 
ciple is  the  same,  and  the  result  would  be  the  same — bankruptcy  for 
the  state  and,  finally,  socialism. 

Cordially  yours, 

WESLEY  KING. 


W.  H.  DICKSON 

ATTORNEY  AT  LAW 
Kearns  Building 


Salt  Lake  City,  December  9,  1916. 

Employers'  Liability  and  Workmen's  Compensation  Commission. 
Gentlemen: 

In  compliance  with  your  request  that  I  give  a  brief  expression  of 
my  views  respecting  the  proposed  "Employers'  Liability  and  Workmen'* 
Compensation  Act,"  drafted  by  you,  I  have  to  say  that  I  have  read  and 
considered  the  same  attentively  and  find  that  it  embodies  the  best 
features  of  similar  legislation  in  many  of  the  states  of  the  Union. 

The  only  criticism  I  have  to  make  is  respecting  the  compensation 
which  it  provides  for  cases  of  total  and  permanent  disability.  I  believe 
that  in  every  such  case  the  bill  should  provide  for,  at  least,  SOME  com- 
pensation during  the  life  of  the  person  so  injured.  Section  29  of  the 
proposed  bill  provides  for  a  weekly  compensation  equal  to  50  per  cent, 
of  the  injured  person's  average  weekly  wages,  for  a  period  not  to  exceed 
333  1-3  weeks.  It  is  apparent,  I  think,  that  it  would  be  impossible  for 
such  injured  employe  to  save  anything  from  this  weekly  compensation. 
All  of  it  would  be  required  for  his  subsistence,  and  at  the  end  of  that 
period,  if  he  so  long  lived,  he  would  be  without  any  means  of  support, 
and  become  a  public  charge,  or  be  dependent  upon  the  charity  of  his 
friends. 

The  legislation  which  this  bill  proposes  would  be  a  great  improve- 
ment upon  our  present  law  and  could  not  fail  to  prove  highly  beneficial 
to  the  wage  earner.  As  the  law  stands  today,  the  injured  employe  can 
recover  nothing  unless  he  is  able  to  satisfy  a  jury  that  his  injuries, 
however  severe,  are  the  result  of  the  negligence  of  his  employer.  Again, 
he  cannot  recover  if  his  injuries  are  the  result  of  his  contributory  negli- 
gence. Finally,  he  cannot  recover,  no  matter  how  free  from  blame  he 
himself  may  have  been,  if  his  injuries  are  the  result  of  the  negligence 
of  a  fellow  servant,  within  the  meaning  of  the  law.  Moreover,  if  he 
should  be  so  fortunate  as  to  obtain  judgment  for  ant  amount  which  a 
jury  may  find  him  to  be  entitled  to,  merely  as  adequate  compensation 
for  the  injuries  sustained,  a  large  proportion  of  his  recovery,  varying, 
as  I  understand,  from  30"  to  50  per  cent,  thereof,  must  be  yielded  to 
the  attorney  who  conducted  his  case. 

It  would,  of  course,  be  impossible  for  the  wit  of  man  to  draft  a  bill 
which  would  result  in  exact  justice  to  the  employer  and  employe,  in 
each  and  every  case.  Whatever  imperfections,  if  any,  there  may  be  in 
your  proposed  legislation,  experience  alone  will  disclose,  and  when  thus 
discovered,  may  be  readily  cured  by  future  amendments. 

I  have  examined  carefully  Sections  6  and  11  of  the  proposed  Act. 
These  sections  have  been  drawn  with  great  care,  and  I  believe  that  the 
courts  will  hold  that  none  of  the  provisions  of  either  is  in  conflict  witfc 
Section  5  of  Article  16  of  our  Constitution. 

Very  truly  yours, 

W.  H.  DICKSON. 


STATE  OF  UTAH 

Employers'  Liability  and 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION   COMMISSION 
STATE  CAPITOL 


Don    B.    Colton,    Chairman 

Vernal,    Utah 

Le  Grand  Young,  V.  Chairman 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah 

Ira    R.     Browning 

Castle  Dale,  Utah 

R.     C.     Gemmell 
Salt  Lake  City,  Utah 


Chas.    H.    Pearson 

Ogden,    Utah 
H.    B.   Windsor,   Secretary 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah 

H.   K.   Russell,  Asst.  Secretary 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah 


Ogden,  Utah,  December  29,  1916. 


Mr.  Le  Grand  Young, 

Deseret  National  Bank  Building, 
Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

My  dear  Sir: 

Not  being  able  to  come  to  Salt  Lake  just  at  this  time  to  sign 
the  finally  corrected  report,  I  wish  you  to  sign  same  for  me  as  fully 
and  completely  as  though  by  my  own  hand. 

In  doing  so,  I  wish  to  say  that  the  report  embodies  my  ideas  in 
that  we  feel  that  it  is  best  to  only  recommend  a  very  conservative  bill 
for  the  beginning  and  secure  the  installation  of  the  Compensation 

System. 

There  are  many  things  in  the  recommended  bill  that  I  should  like 
to  modify,  but  I  do  not  thing  it  best  to  enumerate  them  now,  being  sure 
that  time  and  experience  will  bring  us  nearer  to  perfection. 

I  sincerely  hope  to  see  the  amount  payable  in  case  of  total  disability 
raised  to  $5,000,  or  to  be  for  life,  and  the  maximum  of  weekly  indemnity 
raised  to  $15  in  the  near  future,  not  only  in  Utah,  but  in  all  States, 
particularly  those  on  our  borders. 

I  hope  they  will  pass  the  bill  which  has  cost  us  so  much  hard  work 
as  it  is,  and  improve  it  by  later  amendments. 


Yours  very  truly, 


CHARLES   H.   PEARSON. 


11 


vtr   n  *  I  T 
T L    UH I  to 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


